You may or may not have seen the purge thread. You may or may not have read the Stickied threads. You may or may not have seen the various awesome guides on TL for improving your gameplay. Hell, you may not even know about the search function. If you haven't read all of these, read them NOW:
The bottom line is: I've been moderating the Strategy Forum pretty diligently for the past week and I'm getting sick of it. There's a huge difference between where the Strategy Forum is at right now and where we want it to be. No more warnings, no more closures with friendly explanations.
For those of you posting threads:
If you don't properly tag your thread, your thread will be CLOSED.
If it's clear to me you haven't read one of the threads linked above, you will be BANNED.
For those of you posting [H]/[L] threads:
If you do not post a replay, you will be BANNED.
If you do not attempt to analyze your game, you will be BANNED.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
For those of you posting [Q] threads:
If I can find the answer to your thread using the search function, you will be BANNED.
If I can answer your thread in a few sentences, you will be BANNED (Hint: Simple Questions Simple Answers thread).
For those of you posting [G] threads:
If I feel it sucks, it will be CLOSED.
If I feel it doesn't contain enough information, it will be CLOSED.
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.
For those of you posting [D]/[I] threads:
If I can find another ongoing discussion on the same topic, you will be BANNED.
If you're posting an [I] thread, if it's clear you haven't tried your idea before posting about it, you will be BANNED.
If you talk about imbalance or make balance suggestions, you will be BANNED. We're not here to change the game - that's Blizzard's job (or take it to SC2 General if you must). We're here to do the best with what we have.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
If your thread doesn't apply at a high enough level, it will be CLOSED.
For those of you responding to threads:
If you say anything about imbalance, you will be BANNED.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
If you give unhelpful advice, you will be BANNED.
If your post pisses me off or is just inappropriate, you will be BANNED.
If you argue with a highlighted user/known player without good reason, you will be BANNED. Why? It's a privilege to have these guys posting advice here. They don't gain anything from giving you advice, and treating them with anything less than the respect they deserve only chases them away. So ask yourself this: do you really want pros posting in your threads? If so, be respectful. If not, you probably don't belong here. But fear not, there are plenty of other strategy forums you could be posting in.
Everything else is up to my discretion.
Questions? (read this because I'm not going to respond to questions) The reason we have such strict moderation is we want people in this community to be self-sufficient, not dependent on others, and we want to keep discussion in the Strategy Forum at the highest level. That means quality guides, meaningful discussion about new builds and strategies, and asking for help only as a a last resort (but giving beneficial responses to any help threads). Being able to help yourself is key to becoming a better player, and it also, it reduces clutter in the Strategy Forum. Think about what your ideal Strategy Forum would look like. What would you rather see on the sidebar:
[H] 6 pool [Q] How do I stop 4gate? [D] Void ray balance changes help me idk what i'm doing wrong I don't feel like tagging my help threads but help anyways (Replay included)
OR
[G] ZvP 3 Gate Expand [D] Stargate versus Robo play in PvZ [G] How to Improve [G] Basic Openings/Timings Chrono Boost Math
If you don't feel your thread deserves to be on the sidebar, don't post it. If I don't feel your thread deserves to be on the sidebar, it won't be there.
NOTE: All bans will be temporary Strategy Forum bans. Feel free to PM me about bans/thread closures.
Can we get a sticky of the recommended threads thread? It makes it much easier to get to, and I think it probably deserves a sticky. Good Work, though. Thanks to all the mods for all their work trying to maintain quality control. <3
You don't know how much i <3 you right now. I seriously sick with all the emotional crap threads about motivation to play and stuff. Oh yeah and the infamous "How to Deal with" threads. Seriously guys grow some balls+ Show Spoiler +
and girls you can grow some balls too
.
I've also been pretty irritated at the surge of crap builds, and people naming themselves after everything as if it were that revolutionary. Seiously do you we really need a build on how to 1 base BC rush? Then you have the audacity to name it after yourself as if your worth something? Bisu gets a build named after him because it was game changing, revolutionary. So did Flash and Fantasy. You want a build named after you make a build thats game breaking and revolutionary. Then win a major tourney convincingly.
-__- I'm seriously afraid of opening a thread now. But its exactly what Teamliquid should be like. People that put thought into their post, not some brainless retards who can't follow plain rules.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
By far the best ban reason in the thread. I hate reading 5 threads about "why did I lose this?" when the answer is clearly macro.
I use to use the strategy forum and browse it everyday when I was silver/gold, now that Im high masters I havent been able to look at it without cringeing.
Saracen fighting! (your actually in my division 0.o)
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
by far the best rule. but because of you saracen, i might read the strategy forum again! cheers!
I completely disagree with macro being the only thing necessary to get to a high level.
Maybe in some matchups, but in volatile matchups like TvZ (both sides) only macroing and never looking at your army will get you a quick loss. Making the wrong unit comp will get you a quick loss. Not knowing the proper response to all common cheeses will get you many losses.
So my response to:
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
is that it takes time to improve macro and micro, and some people would actually like to win games while improving.
[*]If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED. ]
wow thats an epic rule sounds really really good and something I would watch
On April 08 2011 11:52 jalstar wrote: I completely disagree with macro being the only thing necessary to get to a high level.
Maybe in some matchups, but in volatile matchups like TvZ (both sides) only macroing and never looking at your army will get you a quick loss. Making the wrong unit comp will get you a quick loss. Not knowing the proper response to all common cheeses will get you many losses.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
is that it takes time to improve macro and micro, and some people would actually like to win games while improving.
I think Saracen is talking about people who post about why they lost when it was obvious that they just A-Moved in a situation where they needed to micro or just got massively out-macroed and those factors were the reason of the loss.
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.
On April 08 2011 12:00 Defeat wrote: Might I suggest another forum/subforum for people seeking help. 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.
I think there's a balance issue with posters being too OP on this forum. Hopefully with the new patch the banhammer will cometh and bring the forum up to par.
Can't wait to see what the forum looks like after some purging. Keep up the good work admins.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
This is my favorite part :D Will you please post the replays when you're done winning as a grim reminder to all aspiring challengers?
I'm happy to see these changes. I might visit the strategy forum for actual strategy now that it won't be littered with "you lost cuz *** is IMBA".
On April 08 2011 11:52 jalstar wrote: I completely disagree with macro being the only thing necessary to get to a high level.
Maybe in some matchups, but in volatile matchups like TvZ (both sides) only macroing and never looking at your army will get you a quick loss. Making the wrong unit comp will get you a quick loss. Not knowing the proper response to all common cheeses will get you many losses.
So my response to:
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
is that it takes time to improve macro and micro, and some people would actually like to win games while improving.
I think Saracen is talking about people who post about why they lost when it was obvious that they just A-Moved in a situation where they needed to micro or just got massively out-macroed and those factors were the reason of the loss.
Saracen just wants more people to read Plexa's thread on how to analyze replays so they can help themselves and not clutter the forum. Too often there are [H] threads made here by frustrated/lazy people who refuse to do their own work analyzing games. Here is a typical template for such posts:
thread title: "[H]pvz is impossible" thread content: "omg this matchup is driving me nuts how do you win??? I've tried everything but can never win! can you guys watch my replays? should I add more high templars and motherships??? link to replay 1 (replay shows the guy failing DT rush, then gets outmacro'd 2 base vs 5 base) link to replay 2 (replay shows the guy floating 3000 minerals and getting crushed) link to replay 3 (replay shows the guy doing some weird ass build he's clearly never practiced before, gets attacked and dies) link to replay 4 (replay shows the guy failing an unoptimized 4 gate build because he used right click instead of attack move and lost all his units for nothing) (all replays show him QQing about balance instead of saying gg at the end)"
I'm sure you've seen many threads like this before. It is apparent upon watching just one of their replays that they didn't watch their own replays even once, didn't look at the how to improve thread, didn't look at Plexa's analyzing replays thread, never looked up their build on liquidpedia, and most likely hasn't touched the strategy forum guidelines.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: [*]If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
[*]If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
Just out of curiosity... what if I win/roflstomp you? Will you self BAN yourself or something?
I agree with this, strats have to be legit and tested and not lazy garbage.
[*]If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
Just out of curiosity... what if I win/roflstomp you? Will you self BAN yourself or something?
I agree with this, strats have to be legit and tested and not lazy garbage.
Lol, as awesome that is, we don't want to be encouraging troll posts to get the mods to ban themselves.
However, I would support a tourney with mods vs noobs where loser is temp banned for a day.
As a relatively new participant of the TL community, this is quite intimidating! I really hope I don't screw up. Great rules though. They will hopefully help maintain a level of professionalism amongst the users, myself included. I particularly enjoy the part where you will be facing off against people who are theorycrafting without actual testing. =]
Edit: I've been watching the forums for about an hour now, and.. crudely put, you guys are really on top of this shit lol. I can't help but laugh when I see a thread pop up and immediately vanish because someone chose to ignore a [!] thread. If only the community would be more mindful and attentive. You gentlemen (and ladies??) really do have your work cut out for you.
When I read all the, BANNED and CLOSED. I can just picture Saracen, Zatic, and Chill just screaming at their monitors looking at threads that are NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
On April 08 2011 11:35 redFF wrote: Lol now im terrified to post in the strat forum.
Same. I've had questions in the past that haven't required a replay to be answered, but now even that will result in a ban. And we can't even dispute or express concerns about the ban.. Great.
As much as this is nice, sometimes it hurts me when a player posted a not-so-good thread and someone decides to help. they read, help to points out some post on what happens while typing a rather long post. When they press the post button, then they realise the post have been closed. which kinda wasted that person time typing their thoughts.But well, thanks for the moderation guess i will just use pm if i want to reply to such threads.
Well, I think TL should incorporate more High Level players to the strategic forum, in case when someone ask for an advice or help, i can have responses from Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Haypro etc etc,
this way ppl will stop doing thread for everything because those advices will be good.
I know ist not obligatory to respond my question about how to improve, but Players that are part of TL rooster should contribute to the community in someway.
On April 08 2011 11:35 redFF wrote: Lol now im terrified to post in the strat forum.
Same. I've had questions in the past that haven't required a replay to be answered, but now even that will result in a ban. And we can't even dispute or express concerns about the ban.. Great.
Hello, wanting to ask simple questions and making an entire thread for it is one of the problems. There is a thread for simple questions though and you wont be banned for posting in it.
On April 08 2011 11:35 redFF wrote: Lol now im terrified to post in the strat forum.
Same. I've had questions in the past that haven't required a replay to be answered, but now even that will result in a ban. And we can't even dispute or express concerns about the ban.. Great.
If a question is complex enough to warrant its own thread, its complex enough to need a replay demonstrating why you need it answered. if its not complex enough for a replay, its not complex enough for its own thread and should be in the Simple Questions/Answers thread.
I think that a Purge was WELL overdue, just because of the fact that 65-70% of some of the stuff is useless, and imho i dont read half of the stuff because of the whinning in the title or "how do I beat XvX" The reason I have never posted is because there are ppl who can write and articulate exactly what they need to in order for me to READ it and get what the poster is saying or trying to improve on how the game is played. I Don't want to read any more people's posts that whine, or cry IMBA. When I First got the game I didn't know TL existed... I went and watched the pro's like TLO and HUK and KIWIKAKI because I knew that I wanted to play protoss. Although I am not as good as them, if you take the time to study their replays it's easy to see what they are doing and how they are doing it. It's up to the player to practice it and become better, not just try it once and say "that didn't work this is bull*&^%".
How many ppl in TL have read EVERY post and if you have I commend you for reading through some really poor postings. I commend and appluad the moderators for their patience and their commitment to make the TL strategy forums about STRATEGY and not whinning.
EDIT----- sry about the long winded statment BUT, I stand by what I said.
Well this has it's good and bad parts , but i don't agree with it totaly because if we think of the people that are going to come here ask for help you will never be satisfied. I have no ideea at what lvl of play the moderator that will push the BAN button is but i am sure there are better players then him and most important A LOT of worst players. So there will be a lot of questions that will be very low lvl and might look stupid. There is like 2% in Masters and beeing in masters is no big deal at the moment so we want strategy for the 2% or everyone ?
Oh but some are really lame and not worth it so they deserv the BANZOR
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: [*]If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED. Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
This is the funniest line I've read on TL in a while and will alone cut the number of threads on the strategy board in half. Strategy forum could become incredibly interesting if these rules are actually enforced.
On April 08 2011 13:39 Greenworld wrote: Well this has it's good and bad parts , but i don't agree with it totaly because if we think of the people that are going to come here ask for help you will never be satisfied. I have no ideea at what lvl of play the moderator that will push the BAN button is but i am sure there are better players then him and most important A LOT of worst players. So there will be a lot of questions that will be very low lvl and might look stupid. There is like 2% in Masters and beeing in masters is no big deal at the moment so we want strategy for the 2% or everyone ?
Oh but some are really lame and not worth it so they deserv the BANZOR
Read the OP closely, people can still ask questions, people can still come for help. The thing is rediculous things that dont warrant thier own thread, such as the player was on 2 base his opponent was on 5 base clearly out macroed and he lost than makes a thread asking why, it is rediculous. Also for small questions that you dont need a thread to answer you can ask them in the simple questions thread.
Please go and read the OP again, it is very fair and people need to follow the forum guidelines, it is by no means running off all the newbs. This is a well needed purge, most players masters+ cant even read the strategy forums because of how horrible it has become.
Most appreciated: although the BW strategy forums were never a mecca of perfect posting, hopefully sanity can be restored to the strategy forums. The new guidelines are pretty nice, and although I do have a couple issues with them, they are trivial in comparison to the benefits most of them will cause.
Thank God, dude. Joined TL like 5 months ago because I heard from other e-citizens that it was the best. I wanted to improve by learning from the best, but I've been kind of disappointed, most strat threads are the most hollow bullshit and I'd get more SC2 improvement by lurking 4chan--props to CecilSunkure for his awesome Toss guides though
back in the BW days, I browsed the strat forums all the time, but the SC2 strat forums just seemed to go to hell so quickly that I've been avoiding it for so long except for the rare gems like Cecil's thread...hopefully now I can return to those forums with a sense of hope instead of a sense of disgust
Such draconian ZOMG YOU WILL BE BANNED moderation and mod-rage is really not terribly constructive, in my opinion. Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of thing (having BANNED in red caps twenty times in a post) makes anyone below high masters terrified to post here.
Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of police-statery will have a chilling effect on well-intentioned discussion. Yes, I realize that the TL staff can do whatever they want with their webspace, and that people who don't like it are free to go elsewhere; the problem is that some people who you don't want to stop posting *will* likely stop posting and/or go elsewhere.
I feel that there are less merciless and less exclusive ways to improve the quality of posting on the strategy forum.
Also, perhaps the place for the super-high-level, exhaustively-researched, took-five-hours-to-write posts that this post seems to encourage is Liquipedia? I notice that its SC2 strategy section is missing coverage of some fundamental topics.
Such draconian ZOMG YOU WILL BE BANNED moderation and mod-rage is really not terribly constructive, in my opinion. Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of thing (having BANNED in red caps twenty times in a post) makes anyone below high masters terrified to post here.
Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of police-statery will have a chilling effect on well-intentioned discussion. Yes, I realize that the TL staff can do whatever they want with their webspace, and that people who don't like it are free to go elsewhere; the problem is that some people who you don't want to stop posting *will* likely stop posting and/or go elsewhere.
I feel that there are less merciless and less exclusive ways to improve the quality of posting on the strategy forum.
Also, perhaps the place for the super-high-level, exhaustively-researched, took-five-hours-to-write posts that this post seems to encourage is Liquipedia? I notice that its SC2 strategy section is missing coverage of some fundamental topics.
As long as they follow the forum guidelines, low-level players shouldn't be scared at all about asking for help to improve their gameplay. That is, of course, after they've done everything they can to improve their gameplay on their own.
As for all other discussion...well the strategy forum is supposed to be a compilation of the best, most thought out guides and discussions. Chances are anybody below Masters (I am Diamond, for reference) who tries to add to the discussion is really just theorycrafting. And we know how Saracen feels about theorycrafting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if low-level players are afraid to post, that's fine. They should be reading, not posting, unless they are specifically asking for help. In that case, the guidelines are easy to follow.
Such draconian ZOMG YOU WILL BE BANNED moderation and mod-rage is really not terribly constructive, in my opinion. Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of thing (having BANNED in red caps twenty times in a post) makes anyone below high masters terrified to post here.
Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of police-statery will have a chilling effect on well-intentioned discussion. Yes, I realize that the TL staff can do whatever they want with their webspace, and that people who don't like it are free to go elsewhere; the problem is that some people who you don't want to stop posting *will* likely stop posting and/or go elsewhere.
I feel that there are less merciless and less exclusive ways to improve the quality of posting on the strategy forum.
Also, perhaps the place for the super-high-level, exhaustively-researched, took-five-hours-to-write posts that this post seems to encourage is Liquipedia? I notice that its SC2 strategy section is missing coverage of some fundamental topics.
As long as they follow the forum guidelines, low-level players shouldn't be scared at all about asking for help to improve their gameplay. That is, of course, after they've done everything they can to improve their gameplay on their own.
As for all other discussion...well the strategy forum is supposed to be a compilation of the best, most thought out guides and discussions. Chances are anybody below Masters (I am Diamond, for reference) who tries to add to the discussion is really just theorycrafting. And we know how Saracen feels about theorycrafting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is if low-level players are afraid to post, that's fine. They should be reading, not posting, unless they are specifically asking for help. In that case, the guidelines are easy to follow.
Excellently said. While the "BANNED"! "CLOSED!" fire and brimstone makes it seem pretty intense, what's being asked of everyone here is actually very moderate. If you have a question, make use of all the resources already offered; if you do so and find your question still can't be answered, then there should be no fear in making a new thread to address the problem.
On the other side, people providing help should make sure to really mean it. If an aspect of SC2 strategy warrants the creation of thread, that means it is NOT a "Simple Questions, Simple Answers" kind of thing, or a "Just macro better" kind of thing, or even a "really obvious unit composition question" kind of thing. So no matter how good you are, your throwaway comments thoughts are not going to be very useful.
I was initially a bit skeptical, but the more I think about it, I have to say I'm fully in agreement with the mods on this one.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: [*]If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
I'm not completely sure about this rule. It seems that even at master level, there are micro and macro mistakes and they "contribute" to a loss whether or not they were the primary contributor. Sometimes it's not as obvious as "oh, you weren't making probes for 3 minutes". Sometimes the player is bronze and just doesn't understand what they are doing wrong even if it is obvious to us, and even if they have read the replay analysis thread. Also, in some games, you lose to a strategy and you know you lost because of bad micro, but maybe you want help to learn how to deal with the strategy better next time instead of relying on your micro to save you. I think it's reasonable to say "Hey, I know I lost this game because of the bad positioning in this last fight, but it's a long replay and I know I could have done other things better. Can anyone help me?"
So there's one moderator who's coming home drunk and beating the stupid strategy posters, and there's another who is just plain angry at theorycrafters and their ilk.
"•If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve."
This rule applies to both [H] and [L] and I am not sure if it's just me but this sounds a bit harsh to strictly enforce:
[L] threads are (supposed to be) from low level players so it is quite obvious that there will be makro holes in their games which will most likely contribute to their loss. While it is of course right that the players can do a lot to improve on that on their own enforcing this sounds like "don't ask for help until you are master league and pretty much have perfect makro". I think much depends on the word "obvious" - missing some larva injects and failing to spread your creep during big battles even happens on the highest levels of play (and while a lot of mistakes are easily noticeable by you I think a bronze or silver player might struggle to identify them even after reading the improvement threads). If it just means "look at your own replay and think about it for a second - you didn't make drones after 5 minutes into the game and were fighting a terran on 4 bases" please forget what I was saying.
EDIT: Well just what Cel.erity was saying - obviously took me a lot longer to type out what I was thinking then I thought.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: [*]If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
I'm not completely sure about this rule. It seems that even at master level, there are micro and macro mistakes and they "contribute" to a loss whether or not they were the primary contributor. Sometimes it's not as obvious as "oh, you weren't making probes for 3 minutes". Sometimes the player is bronze and just doesn't understand what they are doing wrong even if it is obvious to us, and even if they have read the replay analysis thread. Also, in some games, you lose to a strategy and you know you lost because of bad micro, but maybe you want help to learn how to deal with the strategy better next time instead of relying on your micro to save you. I think it's reasonable to say "Hey, I know I lost this game because of the bad positioning in this last fight, but it's a long replay and I know I could have done other things better. Can anyone help me?"
Pretty sure this falls under the "Analyze your replays first" rule. If someone has read the Analyzing a replay thread, and watched the game over once or twice, they should have at least a basic understanding of why they lost if it was something macro based.
However, I also disagree with the rule of being banned for losing a game over a macro mistake. Games are worth watching for more than their win or lose moments. If someone is trying to refine a timing attack, but it gets repelled, then 10 minutes later they didn't notice that their main had only one patch left with 25 probes on it, while their 3rd had 6 workers, there is no reason the person shouldn't make a thread asking for help with the first 10 minutes of the game.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
[/b]
This sounds almost like a dare, I'm tempted to take this challenge
Can I post a word of support to this thread? I'm very happy and excited for this. Posting in the Strategy forum should be a privilege, not a right. I, for one, very rarely do because I am a measly high-diamonder who has much to learn before posting advice on here. I try to learn by sifting through a lot of nonsense on here, and I hope that implementing these strict rules will make it easier to do so. Thanks a lot mod(s)!
On April 08 2011 13:45 Griffith` wrote: Saracen - are there any plans to make a subforum under strategy that only masters players can post?
I think the hope is that we won't need a special subforum once the purge has gone through. I mean, 90% of the reason to avoid the strategy section is "XvX is so IMBA" "Why did I lose this?" "XXX's Stargate-first Guide to PvP" etc etc. With these changes, hopefully it'll make it more readable and reasonable.
i hope this much more strict and consistent mod policy finally turns the "strategy" forum into a strategy forum thats worthy of taking on the BW forum.
Sounds like some pretty strict, but fair changes. There are some obvious changes that will really add interest and deeper thought to the forum.
As a terrible terrible player, it doesn't "suit" me though. This being said, I've not once created a thread at TL simply because there is already so much to learn just by reading. That being said, it would be a little bit sad if it became an "elitist only" discussion. After all, nubs still pay players for lessons, still buy tickets for GomTV, or the MLGs etc. The nubs (majority) are needed simply to just make up numbers and I don't want them to become alienated.
Would like to restate though, I respect the changes, and they won't really effect me.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
Wow.... best rule on any forum I've ever been to ever!
Any of these games should definitely be streamed and casted. Just something that needs to happen. Or a replay pack in the Liquid Weekly. Top 10 worst strategies demolished by Saracen. Something. I just really want to see those games.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
This had me laughing for a good couple of minutes.
But I have to admit, the OP is quite scary. Guess I have to put in a little more effort before I dare to post my PvZ 3 gate expo stargate guide
On April 08 2011 18:37 Noocta wrote: I just hope TeamLiquid don't end up being an too elitist forum like Arena Junkies is for WoW. A "Only masters" forum would be terrible.
Let's be constructive about the game w/o denigrate people. The starcraft community has a good reputation, don't throw it away.with elitism.
Arena Junkies actually is one of the forums who went from elitist to a dump because of the influx of new players from WOTLK, I sincerly hope that the same does not happen to TL with the massive influx of SC2 players, and therefore I see this as a step in the right direction.
Note: I am neither calling WOTLK nor SC2 players annoying, rather that a massive amount of people came with these 2 games and among them a loud minority.
I agree with the sentiments that this rule needs to be changed, or something needs to be done to still keep those kinds of help threads an option...
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
It is true that you can be totally self sufficient when trying to improve but being helped through the process makes it A LOT easier, sometimes correct decisions and the best responses just aren't obvious to you, just being told a few specific points during the game what you should have been doing helps, generally when people make these kinds of threads they aren't completely sure with themselves and being told "no, if you actually did work on your macro a little more that would have been a LOT easier " gives them focus
It is the same reason why coaching is so successful, I bet most Protoss players here have seen the iNcontroL coaching vods, just sitting down with a pro player and talking out/being told what was going wrong and what you should have been doing helps tremendously. If you watch Miniguns stream and his coaching, the vast majority of problems players have is macro (well below Masters), at the end of the sessions they rarely every improve as players but one thing is for sure, at the end they have a clear idea of what they should be working on, even if that was what they were thinking before going in to the session, but at least now they are sure with themselves.
Maybe the Strategy forum isn't the most appropriate place for that type of discussion, but TeamLiquid is such a large community with a lot of players that are willing to spend some of their time to help people, it would be a shame to completely rid the community of being able to do so.
The idea of having a separate sub forum sounds like the best option, you could have it's own rule set, maybe something like having to post at least 2 paragraphs on what you did wrong in the game you are posting and what you think you could have done better, to make sure people have watched over their own replays at least once---a rule like will most likely get rid of all the useless help threads, no one is going to create a post if after going through their replay their notes to create the thread end up being painfully obvious mistakes.
On April 08 2011 18:37 Noocta wrote: I just hope TeamLiquid don't end up being an too elitist forum like Arena Junkies is for WoW. A "Only masters" forum would be terrible.
Let's be constructive about the game w/o denigrate people. The starcraft community has a good reputation, don't throw it away.with elitism.
It isn't elitism, there's no rule that only Master level players may post. People just need to get over the idea that because it's the internet, they can post like crap. The Strategy section of the SC2 forums isn't supposed to be a casual conversational area, it's supposed to give players of all skill levels the tools to improve. Unfortunately without strict rules, that just isn't working out; 90% of posts are either unhelpful, plain wrong or some kind of snide balance oneliner (you ahve scan lol), which kind of defeats the purpose of discussing strategy (how is a lower level playing going to filter out the crap?). And since people on the internet are generally allergic to admitting they're wrong, no-one ever learns anything.
A stricter ruleset might seem harsh, but it's pretty much the only way to discourage people who have nothing useful to say or don't want to put in the effort. If you visit these forums to just have some lighthearted fun, that's great, but you'll have to find the threads where it's appropriate, and that's NOT in the Strategy section. If you put effort and thought into your posting and can accept advice from better players than you, you're going to be absolutely fine! It's not about being the best or most knowledgeable person in the Srategy forums, it's about not interfering with it's intended purpose of being educational and positively adding to that if you can
Saracen, I have noticed frequently there is a "not enough rights" for post updating issue; which I can only assume makes pruning the garbage from posts/replies more difficult for OPs.
I know the simple response is to be more careful with your responses so your rights are no issue, but is this going to be taken into consideration at all?
Also, the unfortunate truth is that some lower level players are not able to analyze their games at the level you have asked. Without the help of better players, they will never get better. I have read the how to improve thread, and believe with my diamond league understanding I can take what is posted there and put it to good use. Unfortunately, I know several players who need more specific help, more than just 'my micro/macro sucks.' The how to get better post teaches you how and why to improve macro and micro, but for some people (myself included) my macro issues are matchup specific- yet I do not feel I have enough of an understanding to make a post under the guidelines you have laid out. + Show Spoiler +
I am quite confident I am not the only person with this issue. How would you suggest we go about it?
On April 08 2011 19:34 Durp wrote: Saracen, I have noticed frequently there is a "not enough rights" for post updating issue; which I can only assume makes pruning the garbage from posts/replies more difficult for OPs.
I know the simple response is to be more careful with your responses so your rights are no issue, but is this going to be taken into consideration at all?
Also, the unfortunate truth is that some lower level players are not able to analyze their games at the level you have asked. Without the help of better players, they will never get better. I have read the how to improve thread, and believe with my diamond league understanding I can take what is posted there and put it to good use. Unfortunately, I know several players who need more specific help, more than just 'my micro/macro sucks.' The how to get better post teaches you how and why to improve macro and micro, but for some people (myself included) my macro issues are matchup specific- yet I do not feel I have enough of an understanding to make a post under the guidelines you have laid out. + Show Spoiler +
I am quite confident I am not the only person with this issue. How would you suggest we go about it?
You didn't have enough rights because I closed the thread you were going to edit your post in. About help threads, here's a response to a PM I sent a while back:
If you really want help, you'd better be willing to put the effort to analyze it yourself first. If you've done this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195389 and still don't know what's wrong, then by all means post your analysis and ask for help. We want people in this community to be self-sufficient. Asking for help should be a last resort, and finding your own mistakes is key to becoming a better player.
It takes quite a bit of effort to help someone who has posted a replay. So the person who's posted the replay better have put in at least that much effort as well. If you don't feel confident enough that your advice is correct to post it, then don't. If you know your advice is correct and good, then you should have no qualms about posting it, regardless of any warnings I have in the OP.
On April 08 2011 19:47 Saracen wrote: It takes quite a bit of effort to help someone who has posted a replay. So the person who's posted the replay better have put in at least that much effort as well.
This deserves an exclamation mark.
On the one hand, there are way to many people posting "I didn't see the rep, BUT...." - which must be annoying as hell for the OP and even makes me mad when reading it. Therefore posts like these do indeed deserve at least a warning. If the OP posts a rep you better watch it or don't post at all. On the other hand, IF we/you are thorough on moderating the replies to these threads, this also means that the OP better present a problem that is worth watching the replay. I certainly don't want to watch, say, a toss player get stomped by mass MMM just because he was like a full mining base behind with nothing else to it.
I agree with the sentiments of others that if the rules are enforced, there should be a separate forum for nubs who need help. Simply put, it is so much easier to have better players analyze your play especially if you are a nub.
I know that I've made help threads as a diamond nub that may be closed by today's standard since my macro wasn't perfect. But I also received some other great advice besides 'macro' that helped make me the masters player I am now. Trust me, I was reading the threads, watching vods, but there are so just so many little things that would take a nub countless games to figure out but would take a better player just a second to point out.
So I think there should be a more casual forum where nubs can ask for help as well as for legitimate threads that don't fit the strat guidelines. For example, some people may want to throw out a Bo or an idea to ask for input e.g. 'best way to execute marine hellion drop' without writing a full fledged guide on the subject. Also, some help threads do not need replays. As is, we stand to lose a lot of interaction that could be beneficial to lower players.
It's like saying 'here's a medical textbook, a how to guide and 20 episodes of greys anatomy. Now go and operate on a patient but don't ask for help until you have all the correct mechanics.' There's a reason why coaching is so valued.
I'm definitely a fan of the cracking down, Saracen And you playing best of threes against people who *think* they have a revolutionary new build... Will there be VODs? Who will be casting?
It almost makes me want to just click on every thread from now on, just to see if there's red in the OP. And if there's not, then it might be worth my time to read through, since I could very well learn something helpful
Does this also means that if we are helping someone analyze their replay, we have to refresh their thread every 5 mins to make sure that it isn't closed after viewing an hour of replay and taking down some notes for the players.
Will shifting them to a "closing" section be better? if the OP makes no effort to edit it in 1 day then the thread would be closed. This way, it allows people that want to help the poster to post some advices, and also allows the thread opener to edit and attempt to make their thread more useful
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)
Maybe this isn't the most useful post to do in a Strategy Forum thread, but I had to say it.
Like I posted in the 'Purge' thread :
On April 08 2011 20:32 lurked wrote: So often I'm dreaming about a useful Strategy Forums, but everyday when I wake up, I go on TeamLiquid and notice the same kind of atrocities.
If this purge is to work and turns the brothel of posts spamming it actually is, into a quality Strategy Forum, at least one of my dream will be fulfilled.
On April 08 2011 11:27 CecilSunkure wrote: I like how it's mandatory to read my thread on improving :D
Your thread is quite amazing. Reading amazing threads should always be a must.
They should have a quiz based on that thread that you must get 100% on before you are allowed to post in the strategy forum.
I actually like this. Just make a random question generator that sucks like 10 questions form a giant pool of questions based on the FAQ. Make it multiple choice.
What must I post if I want help: a)A description of the problem b)A replay c)My analysis d)All of the above
i dunno about the micro/macro part being a bannable offense. There are maybe 10 foreign zergs right now whos macro i dont find absolutely awful, and why cant you improve your strategies while working on your macro/micro at the same time?
I think it should be written "OR YOU WILL BE BANNED" or "YOUR THREAD WILL BE CLOSED" at the end of every of the requirement when you try to make a new thread in the strategy forum.
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
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.
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.
I hope this is a temporary measure to get the forum back on track. Right now the main problem to me is not all the people being wrong, but people not being willing to consider that their understanding of the game is not very good.
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.
Oh wow, this is kinda scary with all the bold red text and caps BANNED everywhere.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
I am so happy, Thanks TL. I can go back to reading the strategy forum again. So much good stuff there, I hadn't even seen the recommended thread post. going through it now.
everyone complaining about alienating low level players need to realize that this is the home of a tiptop pro team. they don't need bronze level theory crafters posting every nonsensical idea that pops in their head, or telling much higher level players that they are wrong. I've heard several quotes from people like QXC and minigun saying they don't like to post here for that reason.
This thread should probably be featured on the frontpage just to avoid people claiming ignorance.
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.
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.
As a player that went from bronze to platinum, and is still improving, i have always been able to look at my replays and tell why i lost a game, mainly thanks to the resources i found on this very forum. I don't see why other low level players can't if i am able to. That said, a low level sub forum as mentioned by others would be a good idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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"
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.
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?
A subtle point about the Bo3 challenge that Saracen put forth: you must use your new build, which you explained in the thread to start with.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You wouldn't need super high quality guides, just good guides with good advice since SCII isn't that well developed yet strategy wise.
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.
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.
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.
Another solution, would be to port the good posts to Liquipedia, instead of a separate High Quality Strat Forum since Liquipedia has the advantage of being more clean to read than a forum. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
You guy should get a stream going and show these games with a caster. That would be the greatest show ever, you could call it WIN OR DIE, or something like that. And like a sound animation that goes BANED! in some deep voice.
On April 09 2011 01:31 BobMcJohnson wrote: Another solution, would be to port the good posts to Liquipedia, instead of a separate High Quality Strat Forum since Liquipedia has the advantage of being more clean to read than a forum. 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.
Liquipedia staff is always available to help out anyone who needs it. A lot of the work staff does is fixing up pages rather than adding new content. Occasionally we kill the server, but most of the time it gets better.
Most of the good builds are already in Liquipedia. If you find one that isn't there, add it. Anyone can do it! One of our editors will come along and help you out.
Man i am so happy to see this purge coming, i have tried to venture into this strategy forum a few times in the past weeks, but it has been hard to find correct information. I hope that we will begin to see a new age in this forum where people can get stuff done!!
OP Post 1 Post 2 Post 3 Post 4... Post K ... Post M Thread Y G B G B B G
M is the average number of threads per Thread.
Each thread is a sequence. The first character is: Y = Follows Guide Lines or N = Not Follows Guide Line
For the rest of the characters B = Bad Post G = Good Post
So the above thread can be summarized as being sequence: Thread = YGBGB...B...G
To do a total modding of N thread, you would have to look at N*M+1 criteria. This is infeasible unless you have rich build you a Mod-Bot.
So the current scheme seems to be:
Let F1(X) = be a function that counts G's in the sequence Let F2e(X) = be a function that counts B's in the sequence
1) Sample the OP the K to M posts where K is the first post on the last page. 2a) If OP = Y or OP = N but F1(K to M) > F2(K to M) then the thread usually not destroyed 2b) If OP = Y or OP = N but F1(K to M) < F2(K to M) then the thread usually is closed and all checked B posters are warned/banned. 2c) If OP = N and the thread length is short, then close. 3) If thread is reported, check the post and warned/banned the author if post = B.
I've seen many posts with poor OPs but the content of the subsequent posts being not terrible allows them to live. This then leads others to post poor topics as well because forum guidelines are not being enforced. But the problem is you are checking a ton of posts in every thread ever on a semi-regular basis.
My scheme would be more strict:
Gameplay: 1)If OP = N, tell user to remake according to guidelines and close topic unconditionally. 2)If OP = Y, let it live. 3)Evaluate OP, if it is very good, move to other forum. 4)If a post is reported check it, and take action against user or possible close the thread if there are a lot of B's.
Strategy and Discussion: 1) Sample K to M posts where K is the first post on the last page. 2) For each B post, ban/warn the user. 3) If a post is reported check it, and take action against user
So you are only doing major post checks in a small subset of the total amount of threads, thereby reducing workload for moderators. You also enforce the posting guidelines better with the initial OP checks.
In his original purge thread Zatic made a point about discouraging people from making posts that read like a 14-year-old girl's texts. Perhaps he was being rhetorical but this is an excellent point that should be followed through on. Organized writing is a sign of clear thinking and sound logic. The reverse is true (i.e., disorganized writing is usually a sign that the author hasn't thought through their point). Not every post should be a treatise but a post that lacks basic sentence structure and doesn't use the word "because" a few times is usually not helpful, in my opinion (I read this forum 3 times per day probably, and rarely post).
As a follower of teamliquid since the beta, I beleive this is most definitely a move in the right direction. I have personally refrained from posting threads because i know that the level of intelligence and knowledge in this community is extremely high. I think new followers should have a period of a little while in which they should just read and learn instead of being mindless.
I will stress one thing however. My first impression of this thread was that it was very elitist and indirectly exclusive to those of masters. As a gold player i thought this sad at first. In reality the post is actually not of this nature(atleast i hope not). It is a very good mechanism to keep things clear and concise and not have any gray area for complaining for getting the banhammer. I encourage people to participate if they have well thought out and analyzed statements.
Awesome news! I used to scour the strategy forum every day months ago but now I barely glance at it. Hopefully this brings about a new era of the strat forum. Great initiative Saracen
List what all the symbols mean in the main post so new comers know what they mean? I've been here a while and I'm not entirely sure what they directly translate into to.
Saracen is on FIRE. If you take a step back from the screen and look at all the red glowing, saying "BANNED". It makes my heart warm, I dunno.
Let's hope this makes the strategy forum a better place. Thanks to the admins, they're just as pissed as most of us are, but they're the ones obligated to take out the trash. My props!
I'm actually really glad to see this! I've refrained from participating too much in the strategy forums because of how cluttered it's been. I haven't posted in it that much and really haven't read it at all recently. Hopefully with some of the extraneous stuff leaving I'll be able to get more useful information out of it in the limited time I have to look through it. I probably won't be posting in it at all any more though since there are so many more qualified members in the community to do so. :D
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED. <-- hahahaha I loved this one XD More on topic: Right about time, if you wanna talk bullshit do so somewhere else but not in the strategy forum.
Another reason not to have a "gameplay" forum with threads moved to strategy based on merit:
The OP, having put time and effort into a stratworthy post, is rather at the mercy of other contributors who, without violating the "gameplay" forum rules, could drag the thread down. Then what? Migrate the OP only, and lose the discussion? Manually filter the thread somehow? It's a recipe for mediocre threads with "Masters only reply plox" in the OP and endless flaming debate over whether it stands a chance anyway. Yuck.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
Boy, oh, boy are you going to be busy. May I suggest a corollary where the replays from these games be added to the thread which forced them? :D
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [H]/[L] threads:
If you do not post a replay, you will be BANNED.
If you do not attempt to analyze your game, you will be BANNED.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
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?
To all the people complaining about the "too high" quality of posting required all of a sudden: 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.
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?
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [H]/[L] threads:
If you do not post a replay, you will be BANNED.
If you do not attempt to analyze your game, you will be BANNED.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
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.
I actually got really excited for this! I was neutral, but now one thing has changed my mind:
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.
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.
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.
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.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [H]/[L] threads:
If you do not post a replay, you will be BANNED.
If you do not attempt to analyze your game, you will be BANNED.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
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.
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...
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".
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
These changes will certainly make the strategy section more interesting and useful to read! Hopefully we will see some more well made posts like the ones linked in the op with this change.
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.
finnaly!!!! 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.
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
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [H]/[L] threads:
If you do not post a replay, you will be BANNED.
If you do not attempt to analyze your game, you will be BANNED.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
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?
If you had read the part that comes after "Why?" it would have been clear to you why this is necessary. If you can't look at your own game and realize your faults why should someone do it for you? This forces users to be less dependant on others which is good thing for everyone.
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
Your metaphor both disturbs me and fills me with hope.
I expect, regarding the initial thing, that it is really just to cut down on the vast majority of "why did I lose this?" threads where it is obvious within 10 seconds that the person produced 4 drones over the entire game and attacked into siege lines.
After sleeping on it, I woke up and felt 2 things: 1. This is like Rekrul reincarnated, only now the flock of sheep to slaughter amongst is 20x bigger. 2. This initiative gives me the warm, bloodlusty feeling in my heart, that usually only the Automated Ban List thread gives. I'm loving it. Thanks Saracen for bringing joy to my morning coffee moments again!
I had a feeling that one of the guidelines of the TL forum is that your ladder ranking does not matter and everyone has a chance to ask what they need to or wants to ask?
Although the standards of TL forums are getting out of hand. I do not understand why the mods are beginning to judge people using personal standards? If threads are closed and people banned at the whims of our mods, the forum will be solely reflecting the views of our mods on what is good and what is wrong. Even though the world is meritocratic and pragmatic, higher-ranked echelons can get their opinions across the table and accepted more easily, and views by less able people will not be taken into serious consideration(except when its really ingenious or unique, and correct)
We are also discriminating against people with lower skills and experience although mods and other members always add footnotes/extra brackets that they are meant for all TL members and would not be discriminating, the content of the post/thread would clearly suggest that people with less experience and skill should be keeping quiet and listening to the opinions of other skilled players.
With the new addtion of these rules, I think the discrimination of lower leagued players/less experienced/skilled players has gone into overdrive. The mods are using their experience to decern of whether a question or advice is accurate or not; although the act of regulating the quality of the advice given is driven from a positive side, but this will inadvertently create discrimination between members in TL, more skilled/experienced members: allowed to post and discuss freely, voice out opinions(correct ones); less skilled/experienced members not allowed to post, blocked in discussions and only allow to listen in and learn from skilled members.
The act of moderating forums is actually an act of discrimination(even if it is much needed to filter out junk), mods can choose what is "good" by their standards and what is "not good" and now the free closing of threads and posts and banning of members can be freely exceuted by mods using a "relative" method of determining of what is good and what is not. Different things apply to various individuals in a differing way, and what is deemed "not good" by the mod could actually be helpful to certain individuals depending on the situation.
Although learning from other more skilled members is good, but the process of only listening is definitely obstructive to individual learning and advancement. Problems that apply to others may not apply to you and vice versa. So the learning scopes of less skilled members will be limited.
I am just putting this forward for the enitre TL community: Do we want full-fledged elitism in TL forums, seperating members into more skilled/experienced and less skilled/experienced and allowing different access on posting in stratagy forums and help forums for members? Or would we rather have a open community where all TL members can put forward their viewpoints anytime, anywhere on any topic they would like to discuss on; regardless on their B.net league ranking or experience or seniority on the forums? Obviously, there is no intermediate choice or solution, as the semi-elitism/semi-opened forum has resulted in today's state.
If full-fledged elitism is to be put forward as TL's future, the more skilled players will be pleased, unsurprisingly; as the removal of "noob" and "useless opinions" on TL will definitely benefit them to a certain extent. But the expulsion of less able members and beginners will result in their learning curve being steepened due to the removal of members able to coach and point out flaws in them. This change in elitism can be done by the mods in quite a short time, but the reluctance to do so is just to allow slight freedom of speech regulated by numerous rules and conditions that are "harsh". Either you get it right, and you can remain here for the next post; or you will get banned/closed. All in one judgement.
So I call for all TL members to be self-disciplined and be responsible for their own actions for this forum to become a better place for other members. Less skilled members can check for answers to their questions before putting it forward as a new thread and more skilled members should also accomodate the less skilled members as everyone needs to learn, no matter where it starts, all skilled players also has had a humble beginning and skilled players should not look down on beginners just because of the fact that they have more experience. If everybody can think through and be a more responsible member online, have the self-discipline to supervise their own actions and ensure that their actions do not cause inconvenience and frustration to others, have the proper conduct to put forward all their opinions in a more poilte, friendly manner, TL would be a much better place for all members and could become more of a open online forum. ONLY IF everyone makes the effort collectively to make TL a un-modded forum with minimal trolling/flaming etc. IT STARTS FROM US. FROM ME. YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be BANNED. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it. (B.net league placements aren't that relevant. Your diamond top spot doesn't mean anything)[Strategy Forum Guidelines: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=113479］ If your thread doesn't apply at a high enough level, it will be CLOSED.
EDIT: if you bothered to read this, please tell me you care
Majordomo Executus yells: Imprudent whelps! You've rushed headlong to your own deaths! See now, the master stirs! Majordomo Executus yells: Behold Ragnaros - the Firelord! He who was ancient when this world was young! Bow before him, mortals! Bow before your ending! Ragnaros yells: TOO SOON! YOU HAVE AWAKENED ME TOO SOON, EXECUTUS! WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS INTRUSION? Majordomo Executus yells: These mortal infidels, my lord! They have invaded your sanctum and seek to steal your secrets! Ragnaros yells: FOOL! YOU ALLOWED THESE INSECTS TO RUN RAMPANT THROUGH THE HALLOW CORE? AND NOW YOU LEAD THEM TO MY VERY LAIR? YOU HAVE FAILED ME, EXECUTUS! JUSTICE SHALL BE MET, INDEED! Ragnaros kills Executus. Ragnaros yells: NOW FOR YOU, INSECTS! BOLDLY, YOU SOUGHT THE POWER OF RAGNAROS. NOW YOU SHALL SEE IT FIRSTHAND!
On April 08 2011 11:35 redFF wrote: Lol now im terrified to post in the strat forum.
Excellent
Not a good thing, IMO.
it is since it makes people think twice if their thread/post really is needed/contributing and makes em put more effort in new threads.
i pretty much never checked the strat forum cause 99% was worthless "didnt watch replay but lol get X noob" and now visit it evryday to see how things go.
This had to be done. Without a voting system to let the TL community decide which post a relevant and which are immaterial, it will be up to the Mods to be the law of the land. Good luck with this!
why is it teamliquid feels like a dictatorship nowadays? say one word about the administration or how things are run here and youre out.. im scared to reply to threads nowadays cause I might get banned because i broke one of the 5 million rules. :S
On April 10 2011 00:14 Mettyman wrote: why is it teamliquid feels like a dictatorship nowadays? say one word about the administration or how things are run here and youre out.. im scared to reply to threads nowadays cause I might get banned because i broke one of the 5 million rules. :S
actually TL got way more relaxed on many many things compared to back before the flood of 2010.
this here in the strat forum is a special thing and very needed so the forum actually can serve its purpose (which isnt to spam,post balance whines in disguise or let other people do the work for you).
if the demand is so high then maybe we need a low level subforum with different rules but ill promise you no one decent will ever enter that.
TL is what it is (and its the best gaming related website ive seen in like 13 years of internet) cause the moderation is so good and sometimes strict. and if you dont do stupid stuff the chance of getting banned is very small.
if you are scared to post here now then see ask yourself why are you scared? maybe because you know your post might not be worth a read/helpful? and what do you prefer to read. threads where actual analysis and tips are the norm or tons of spam threads you saw 50 times already with 70% of the posts beeing some "get nydus lol" crap?
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
This is the only one I'm really concerned about, I mean, granted this is a higher level Strategy forum; however, even Master league players will forget to make workers at times, or get supply blocked, and of course either of those two things will contribute to the loss; however, I didn't think it'd be such a horrible offense after posting the replay and giving an in-depth analysis of the replay that just because our probes and pylons isn't day9 that we get banned?
If this is the case, could you at least make a stickied thread much like the simple question simple answer where novices can post their replays and ask for help?
I'm actually looking forward to lurking the strat forums in the future! I hope all the pros see this and decide it's worth their time again to post here. Good luck guys, it's gonna be a tough transition back.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
This is the only one I'm really concerned about, I mean, granted this is a higher level Strategy forum; however, even Master league players will forget to make workers at times, or get supply blocked, and of course either of those two things will contribute to the loss; however, I didn't think it'd be such a horrible offense after posting the replay and giving an in-depth analysis of the replay that just because our probes and pylons isn't day9 that we get banned?
If this is the case, could you at least make a stickied thread much like the simple question simple answer where novices can post their replays and ask for help?
I do not think he is talking about forgetting the occasional worker, but rather things like 1500 minerals at the 10 minute mark, only 21 Workers on 2 base or other obvious flaws like that.
I have never posted in the strategy forum before, because i feel not qualified to give other people advice, however, when i read some of the threads here i actually think that such harsh guidelines are neccesary. Btw. im really suprised nobody has posted this : Shit just got real!
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
On April 08 2011 11:27 CecilSunkure wrote: I like how it's mandatory to read my thread on improving :D
its cause all your threads are fucking awesome dude
Keep up the Good Work
Agreed that guide is excellent.And really so many of peoples problems could be solved by that guide that you don't need to be constantly spamming the strat forum with help threads.
I haven't been around in this community very long (about 9 months) but i go through the BW and SC2 strat forums and i can see a clear difference between the quality of threads in them but i applaud the idea of banning retards who post like this
I mean for god sakes look at the title it is absolutely pathetic so i really hope you continue this banhammer campaign GL with getting the thread back to quality
I fear TL and especially the TL strategy thread is becoming exceptionally elitist. 92% of players on the ladder are platinum and under, and ~50% are bronze. The teamliquid site should embrace people of all skill levels. If the sc2 strategy forum is going to be so exclusive, there should be a place for people to ask questions and get help that is much more inclusive. Make the sc2 strategy board you want, but include a board (and one thread is not enough, sorry) where people can post less then exceptional threads.
On April 10 2011 05:01 mothergoose729 wrote: I fear TL and especially the TL strategy thread is becoming exceptionally elitist. 92% of players on the ladder are platinum and under, and ~50% are bronze. The teamliquid site should embrace people of all skill levels. If the sc2 strategy forum is going to be so exclusive, there should be a place for people to ask questions and get help that is much more inclusive. Make the sc2 strategy board you want, but include a board (and one thread is not enough, sorry) where people can post less then exceptional threads.
It's not about elitism or not. It's about strategy. It's about what's bad play and what's better play.
Let's use an example: the vast majority of people are not scientists. That doesn't mean we get to clog/clutter the science textbooks and journals with our random ideas. Scientists aren't being "elitist" by excluding how I think the oceans formed in their journals. They know more than me.
There needs to be some censorship of the strategy forum or else no one will learn anything.
Teamliquid's strategy forum should be held to a certain standard and the level of effort the mods asked for is reasonable. The crackdown is definitely going to turn away some members of the community away and I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. There are some excellent general guides stickied on the board which can be read under 2 hours. The Plat and under players benefit greatly from applying those guides to their own games. If these players are unwilling to put down effort to improve themselves, I see no reason why they should pollute the forum for those who have put down the effort.
Lol, i can just picture saracen going "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking..."
And how is the forum becoming more elitist? What he is weeding out from is the stuff that people can found just by spending time analyzing their own reps (is it really that hard to know you need better macro when you have 1.5k min 15 mins into the game?), the retarded shit that some random guy think is good by winning vs bronze people (i don't go here often, but there's a thread in the bw forum about 10hatch pwn protoss), and threads where people go "derp derp how do i do dis" when there are like 10 threads about that already if they bother to use the search function. In a short version, this is what he did:
You don't spend effort into improving your own game, you're banned. You post a guide and it obviously blows ass, you're banned. You don't use the search function, you're banned.
Posting is somewhat the same. Some effort and common sense is required. If you're posting, look at this, and worried about posting something too scrubby, you probably are one and you shouldn't post. Save the thread from being flooded with 3 pages of shit posts and 1 liners.
Anything wrong with that?
Most of game forums out there either do the same shit, or they're dead. Granted, Saracen's punishment is a bit extreme, but Shoryuken.com and diablo.incgamers.com do the same stuff, and they're the biggest site of their respective game.
On April 10 2011 06:23 Rockstar25 wrote: This is why tl is worse than 4chan. Say hi = ban.
That's funny I don't remember that being discussed in the first post, and this is suppose to be a strat forum do you really need to say "hi" to discuss strategy?
Updated the OP to make things a little more clear and fun for everyone:
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN AND RIDICULED. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
On April 10 2011 07:23 frogmelter wrote: Saracen, will there be anything regarding bm in replays?
Thanks in advance.
Not by me, but other mods might have different opinions. If there's BM in the replay, then you can just choose not to help him. If the BM is derailing the thread, then the OP will get closed anyways.
[*]If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
I guess I'm a little confused about this particular portion... I play sc2 at a fairly high level, but I've yet to play a game where I didn't KNOW there was improvement to be made regarding my macro, unit control, positioning, and scouting. Does this mean that I can't post a thread with replay, regarding how to deal with a particular unit composition? If I post a game played with someone similar to my level, (or a handful of replays, perhaps, where I try several different unit compositions to deal with what he's doing?).
I ask this with specific intent, I was in the process of writing and editing a strategy thread regarding a specific TvP unit comp (marine/bf.hell/thor+strikecannon/raven/banshee), and I have several replays showing my struggles vs this comp. However, being that I'm a lowly top600-ish(like 600 masters now?) player, and every replay I watch of myself I can find mistakes with my unit control, or mistakes with my macro, does this mean my post would be a bannable offense? Or does this qualify as more than "minimal" effort?
I apologize if this post/question is redundant in any way, just wanted to clarify.
[*]If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
I guess I'm a little confused about this particular portion... I play sc2 at a fairly high level, but I've yet to play a game where I didn't KNOW there was improvement to be made regarding my macro, unit control, positioning, and scouting. Does this mean that I can't post a thread with replay, regarding how to deal with a particular unit composition? If I post a game played with someone similar to my level, (or a handful of replays, perhaps, where I try several different unit compositions to deal with what he's doing?).
I ask this with specific intent, I was in the process of writing and editing a strategy thread regarding a specific TvP unit comp (marine/bf.hell/thor+strikecannon/raven/banshee), and I have several replays showing my struggles vs this comp. However, being that I'm a lowly top600-ish(like 600 masters now?) player, and every replay I watch of myself I can find mistakes with my unit control, or mistakes with my macro, does this mean my post would be a bannable offense? Or does this qualify as more than "minimal" effort?
I apologize if this post/question is redundant in any way, just wanted to clarify.
Thanks.
The amount of effort you put into your OP should reflect the amount of time you're willing to spend analyzing your game and solving your problem by yourself. If it's clear that you put in at least the amount of effort we're going to be spending helping you out, then you're fine. If you half-ass the OP and don't try searching for answers first, then you're going to be banned. You don't have to be too hard on yourself, and you don't have to play perfectly in the replay. But if there's something stupid that contributed to your loss (e.g. you were supply blocked when he attacked or you suicided all your units into his army), then don't bother posting it.
TL;DR: Search for discussions on what you're having trouble with first. Then, if you can't find anything relevant, make a pretty OP with replay analysis and title it properly.
Why on earth should there be some sort of Banning for posting a Replay with BM in it if were asking for help in a non-BM manner?
IdrA, regarded as one of the best Zerg players out there, BM's quite often.
Many people are very emotional players, and we get upset when we are losing to something we wish we weren't. And for those people, they may BM some times.
Now if we apologize for the BM before we upload the replay, because we are sorry about it (well, most of us anyways), I don't see a problem with posting BM had replays..
*Edit* If you (being used in the ambiguous case, not Saracen) aren't someone who agrees on that note, then you shouldn't post in those OP, but don't allow others NOT to help them out if they don't share your views.
On April 10 2011 08:40 Jeffbelittle wrote: Why on earth should there be some sort of Banning for posting a Replay with BM in it if were asking for help in a non-BM manner?
IdrA, regarded as one of the best Zerg players out there, BM's quite often..
I addressed this already. Please read my posts before.
On April 10 2011 08:40 Jeffbelittle wrote: Many people are very emotional players, and we get upset when we are losing to something we wish we weren't. And for those people, they may BM some times.
Now if we apologize for the BM before we upload the replay, because we are sorry about it (well, most of us anyways), I don't see a problem with posting BM had replays..
*Edit* If you (being used in the ambiguous case, not Saracen) aren't someone who agrees on that note, then you shouldn't post in those OP, but don't allow others NOT to help them out if they don't share your views.
Except they aren't really sorry because they go do it again...
This has been so great, you mods have been doing a great job keeping the bad posts off of Strategy Forums, its so nice to be able to log on, go to strat forums and read ACTUAL builds and strategies. Great work keep it up :D
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve.
By far the best ban reason in the thread. I hate reading 5 threads about "why did I lose this?" when the answer is clearly macro.
Finally, strictening things up. However, now it feels like any person asking for strategy help --^ will need to be a top tier player (pro gamer) or the replay will have flaws in it? Nobody is perfect in micro/macro, there will always be flaws. Unless you mean that the flaws must be the only reason the strategy you used didn't work??
And what about if you post a replay for a strategy and the person you are facing off make major macro/micro mistake, that makes your build valuable in this condition, but not otherwise???¸
Some of these rules seem a bit absurd, here's some that stuck out at me:
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.
What do you define as "high level?" The majority of this section's members are well below the level of the blue highlighted posters but the blue highlighted posters (that make regular posts and content) still tend to be well below Semi-Pro / Pro NA level (what I take to mean high level).
If your thread doesn't apply at a high enough level, it will be CLOSED.
Same as above. Except this is for the [D] section. So anyone below Masters can't engage in discussion applicable to their skill level pretty much, as there is plenty of discussion that is applicable to only lower levels (core demographic of this section).
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
Completely subjective. For example, Catz was advocating his silly 4 drone harass on steppes of war for whoever knows how long and it's clearly, mathematically, suboptimal ("Terrible" - QXC) and yet I've seen him advocate here. So insta ban or does Catz get a free pass just because he thinks it works even though 99% of people think it doesn't. Of course he didn't mathematically test it, just a hunch that he got ahead if he manages to kill 1 worker. Sounds like your own racial bias (everyone has some) or skill level bias could easily sway your opinion with regards to what is correct or incorrect.
The reason we have such strict moderation is we want people in this community to be self-sufficient, not dependent on others, and we want to keep discussion in the Strategy Forum at the highest level.
So there would basically only 50 or less people posting, most of them not discussing strategy at the "highest level" but more around casual/semi-pro 3700-3900 masters level, most of which is only partially applicable to the true "highest level" of play while the lower level players effectively have no reason to post at all since they can't meet the new guidelines.
It sounds like what you're envisioning is (arguably) high level content and not much discussion (high level players are not magically going to start using this forum for discussion as opposed to talking with clan members). Is that the idea? If that's the idea then completely disregard this as this is more of a defense to all the lower level players, but if you don't want them posting at all until they are at least mid masters or so, then I understand.
I believe there are some fallacious ideas underlying this that need to be addressed.
Let's take the idea that people can't ask questions until their macro is up to some mod's individual standards.
First, it's unwise to make issues for mod judgment calls any more subjective than absolutely necessary. The reason is that it creates inevitable error, and where error means banning people without cause, that gives the site a bad reputation.
Second, the idea that people can't ask productive questions until one aspect of their play is satisfactory (macro, etc) is fallacious. Just because macro can improve, they can't improve some other aspect of their play? No, of course not. Macro wins games, but other things matter too. And sometimes asking questions to improve macro is important too.
Third, the unstated intention behind removing posts that aren't from highly skilled players is to exclude newer, less skilled players from making posts, asking questions, and so on. This is great if you're a skilled player who wants a forum exclusively covering issues related to skilled play, but not everyone is a skilled player. In fact, most people aren't. Tossing out everyone not up to some standard is unjust, reduces the number of people who will be interested in the site, and ultimately gives Team Liquid a (deserved, at that point) bad reputation for being elitist and scornful of engaging casual players.
Fourth, whatever happened to simple curiosity? Is there something wrong with someone asking a question because they want to know, regardless of how good their macro is? Yeah, if someone's not interested in the question they get to keep reading on to the next subject line. That is not a serious blow to the forums; indeed, appealing to as many people as possible is what creates a lively community, one that will last and engage yet more people as time goes on. Excluding people, by the same token, does the opposite.
If what you really want is a forum with only great content, go make a forum where you only link great threads. If what you want is a forum with high level content, go make one. No one will mind! But excluding people by restricting a forum of broad applicability? That people will mind. This isn't about quality standards; it's about who is allowed to engage in the community. The answer, if the community is to be healthy, should be everyone.
On April 10 2011 19:57 Taliesin wrote: Second, the idea that people can't ask productive questions until one aspect of their play is satisfactory (macro, etc) is fallacious. Just because macro can improve, they can't improve some other aspect of their play? No, of course not. Macro wins games, but other things matter too.
What they are trying to achieve is that the strategy forum is about strategy. If your macro isn't up to a decent level, there's no point in looking at strategy (e.g. how do I kill mass carriers???).
On April 10 2011 19:57 Taliesin wrote: And sometimes asking questions to improve macro is important too.
As stated in the OP, there is a simple questions/simple answers thread.
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.
What do you define as "high level?" The majority of this section's members are well below the level of the blue highlighted posters but the blue highlighted posters (that make regular posts and content) still tend to be well below Semi-Pro / Pro NA level (what I take to mean high level).
If your thread doesn't apply at a high enough level, it will be CLOSED.
Same as above. Except this is for the [D] section. So anyone below Masters can't engage in discussion applicable to their skill level pretty much, as there is plenty of discussion that is applicable to only lower levels (core demographic of this section).
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
Completely subjective. For example, Catz was advocating his silly 4 drone harass on steppes of war for whoever knows how long and it's clearly, mathematically, suboptimal ("Terrible" - QXC) and yet I've seen him advocate here. So insta ban or does Catz get a free pass just because he thinks it works even though 99% of people think it doesn't. Of course he didn't mathematically test it, just a hunch that he got ahead if he manages to kill 1 worker. Sounds like your own racial bias (everyone has some) or skill level bias could easily sway your opinion with regards to what is correct or incorrect.
The reason we have such strict moderation is we want people in this community to be self-sufficient, not dependent on others, and we want to keep discussion in the Strategy Forum at the highest level.
So there would basically only 50 or less people posting, most of them not discussing strategy at the "highest level" but more around casual/semi-pro 3700-3900 masters level, most of which is only partially applicable to the true "highest level" of play while the lower level players effectively have no reason to post at all since they can't meet the new guidelines.
It sounds like what you're envisioning is (arguably) high level content and not much discussion (high level players are not magically going to start using this forum for discussion as opposed to talking with clan members). Is that the idea? If that's the idea then completely disregard this as this is more of a defense to all the lower level players, but if you don't want them posting at all until they are at least mid masters or so, then I understand.
Ok, let's settle this once and for all. I don't give a flying shit whether you're bronze league or masters league or wooden toy soldier league or ultra fantastic Justice league. If your OP sucks, it's gonna be closed, and you're gonna suffer the consequences. If Mr. wooden toy soldier league needs help with his gameplay and can't for the life of him figure out what he's doing wrong, then he should be all means post a thread analyzing his gameplay and asking for help. And if Mr. grandmaster superhero posts a two line help thread going "omfg wtf happened how did I looooze?!!?!?" he's going to get his ass banned. If Mr. Top 200 in the US posts a discussion about a new strategy, of course it's going to have more credibility if Joe Bronze league posts a discussion about the same strategy. But if Mr. Top 200's OP sucks, it's gonna get closed, and if Joe Bronze league's OP is amazing, then it's going to be left open. Believe it or not, I trust that people in Bronze league can make just as good of OPs as any other league. We want threads to be relevant. It doesn't matter who's posting them, as long as people can get some benefit out of them. If ROOTGosu or VTI'mSoPro or EGSuperAwesome gives terrible advice in a help thread, he's going to be warned. Similarly, if Mr. Diamond League gives incorrect advice, you'll see big bold red letters under his post saying "This guy's a retard don't listen to him." Why? Because you don't want to be confusing the OP by telling them bullshit. If a person isn't cut out to write a guide, then he shouldn't be writing it, whether or not he's in grandmaster. How is this so hard to see? Do you really see anything useful coming out of Sterling Silver writing about his super awesome Mothership DT double cloak rush? Who's going to find that useful? No one. But if he pulls a magic rabbit out of his ass and writes a flat out amazing guide, then I'll give him fifty billion e-hugs. And it actually does happen quite often, believe it or not. Not all of the amazing guides and discussions you see in the Strategy Forum were started by master league players. A good portion of them were written by gold/platinum/etc. leaguers. To be honest, I don't give half a shit about how elitest you think I'm being. The bottom line is we want our Strategy Forum to be the place to go to get the highest quality information and advice. That's what separates us from other forums that you may or may not frequent. That means we can't have random bullshit posted 24-7 here, and that means we need strict moderation. If you want everybody to live in magical-unicorn-pony-shooting-rainbows-and-theorycrafting-bullshit-out-of-our-asses, then there's a site just for you. If you want real advice that you can trust is 100% correct; if you want to actually improve your gameplay; if you actually want to learn something worth learning, then come here.
I think you can stop the holier-than-thou attitude Mr Saracen. We are humans, not the stray-dogs/cats you see on the streets. Perhaps you can put your words and thoughts across in a nicer manner? And not going I-DONT-CARE-OF-WHAT-YOU-THINK-COS-U-CAN-GTFO-IF-U-DONT-LIKE-IT attitude and use a mutually exclusive tone. Being a mod has its responsibilities and its authority, please use it in a more proper way if you will, using condescending tones to members dont make you more respected. Making sense in your post and treating others politely and respecting others do. I am not disagree-ing with your actions, but it could be put across in a more proper manner
On April 10 2011 22:45 DarkJirachi wrote: I think you can stop the holier-than-thou attitude Mr Saracen. We are humans, not the stray-dogs/cats you see on the streets. Perhaps you can put your words and thoughts across in a nicer manner? And not going I-DONT-CARE-OF-WHAT-YOU-THINK-COS-U-CAN-GTFO-IF-U-DONT-LIKE-IT attitude and use a mutually exclusive tone. Being a mod has its responsibilities and its authority, please use it in a more proper way if you will, using condescending tones to members dont make you more respected. Making sense in your post and treating others politely and respecting others do. I am not disagree-ing with your actions, but it could be put across in a more proper manner
EDIT: spelling
They have a damn good reason to stand their ground firmly and draw the line once and for all. They've tried it with blue posts, they've tried it with the soft aproach, now its simply time to go all out mode and strangle all those who clutter the strategy forum with posts which have zero effort put into them.
Yes, we are humans. But in some cases stray cats and dogs are better on the strategy forum because they lack the thumbs to type and reply to strategy forum threads. They WANT to strangle out all those who just post a 30 second reply because it has been killing the strategy forum for so long. It won't matter how much critique you want to give towards them.
TL simply wants its quality forum back, and it will give everyone hell until the forum returns to a shimmer of its former glory. This is the aditude they HAVE to have in order to keep on purging, and we as the users that want quality should encourage that.
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONO please read my post. I am only talking about the tone he is using in this thread to reply other members. He is treating them like trash, I was simply suggesting that he could put is forward in a more polite albeit strict way, but not using such attitudes and tones that insult people throughly. You can be soft and condescending and insulting but you could also be strict and polite. See the difference?
EDIT: added a few more 'no's to emphasise my point EDIT2: this is a 30second response. should i get banned for posting it?
I wholeheartedly support the purge. Actually, it would be better if the purge would also occur in the LR thread in the future too. Posts' qualities seem to drop fast in this past months. At least this should make people think twice before hitting the post button.
On April 10 2011 23:05 DarkJirachi wrote: NONONONONONONONONONONONONONO please read my post. I am only talking about the tone he is using in this thread to reply other members. He is treating them like trash, I was simply suggesting that he could put is forward in a more polite albeit strict way, but not using such attitudes and tones that insult people throughly. You can be soft and condescending and insulting but you could also be strict and polite. See the difference?
EDIT: added a few more 'no's to emphasise my point EDIT2: this is a 30second response. should i get banned for posting it?
I think you're overly sensitive. He isnt treating them like trash, rather, treating the people who dont understand exactly what he meant in the OP like idiots. Thats totally deserved. Obviously this is just my opinion and has a very good chance of being wrong, as are most of my opinions
MAYBE MAYBE I am over. But there are also people who are NOT idiots, and also feel insulted or hurt? Everyone has feelings, and obviously the people who are idiots should be treated like idiots, but those who aren't will feel they are being insulted as well wont they? If your teachers or coaches talked to you in these tones, going I DONT GIVE A FLYING SHIT about your opinions, and using extremely mocking tones like MR.MASTER LEAGUE, and MR WOODEN TOY SOLDIER etc.etc, you will also be crossed and indignant about it. EVEN IF you know you did not deserve this or not meant for you.
Even if most people are not affected by such mockery and insensitivity (the tones were not meant for them), there are those who will as not every human being on this planet is unempathetic and insensitive to be not affected by such tones on others, some people may be hurt and not reflecting their feelings. Thus his method of approch on this particular matter is incorrect, albeit for a justifiable reason.
EDIT: I agree with maryelizbethwinstead, I would warn him too. Its just....not right
I have a huge interest in more order generally and like to make many suggestions for the administration and moderation of this forum.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting threads:
If you don't properly tag your thread, your thread will be CLOSED.
If it's clear to me you haven't read one of the threads linked above, you will be BANNED.
I recommend making some tweaks to the software so that everyone will be forced to chose a tag from a drop-down list. That should be easy to implement. I'd also apply other colours to sticky threads, so it becomes more clear that it is mandatory to look through them. Currently there is only a purple symbol showing that they are permanent.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote:
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
That is very arbitrary and unreliable. Better look for another solution.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote:
If your post pisses me off or is just inappropriate, you will be BANNED.
...
EDIT: Some Clarification Ok, let's settle this once and for all. I don't give a flying shit whether you're bronze league or masters league or wooden toy soldier league or ultra fantastic Justice league. If your OP sucks, it's gonna be closed, and you're gonna suffer the consequences. If Mr. wooden toy soldier league needs help with his gameplay and can't for the life of him figure out what he's doing wrong, then he should be all means post a thread analyzing his gameplay and asking for help. And if Mr. grandmaster superhero posts a two line help thread going "omfg wtf happened how did I looooze?!!?!?" he's going to get his ass banned. If Mr. Top 200 in the US posts a discussion about a new strategy, of course it's going to have more credibility if Joe Bronze league posts a discussion about the same strategy. But if Mr. Top 200's OP sucks, it's gonna get closed, and if Joe Bronze league's OP is amazing, then it's going to be left open. Believe it or not, I trust that people in Bronze league can make just as good of OPs as any other league. We want threads to be relevant. It doesn't matter who's posting them, as long as people can get some benefit out of them. To be honest, I don't give half a shit about how elitest you think I'm being. The bottom line is we want our Strategy Forum to be the place to go to get the highest quality information and advice. That's what separates us from other forums that you may or may not frequent. That means we can't have random bullshit posted 24-7 here, and that means we need strict moderation. If you want everybody to live in magical-unicorn-pony-shooting-rainbows-and-theorycrafting-bullshit-out-of-our-asses, then there's a site just for you. If you want real advice that you can trust is 100% correct; if you want to actually improve your gameplay; if you actually want to learn something worth learning, then come here.
Ok, I agree fully that we need a new direction in the moderation. I always said the same.
But I have some advice for you, too:
Watch your language! It really adds fuel to the fire and helps no one. I don't need to quote the words, you know what I'm talking about. Overly aggressive language doesn't help.
Your spelling is bad. Improve it or use spell-checking in the browser.
Talking about grammar and spell-checking, I suggest moderators also to look for correct spelling and grammar, too. Generally the typeface should restricted to a subtle one in the whole forum. It really hurts if I can't understand postings because someone didn't bother using language properly.
Saracen's tone shouldn't offend anyone it doesn't apply to, AKA good posters and writers of good OP's, and was meant to offend those who it does.
I try to make all of my answers spaced out so it's appealing to the eyes, along with writing in-depth OP's which may be have to be an entire essay by any means, but merely a little more than enough to fully describe my problems.
Now if your not like that, and you think you can get away with:
Topic: [H] PvT Dealing with Cloakshees
Content in OP: So I was playing this game and I had my bases up faster than the Terran all the time and I had larger armies and still lost because of these massed Cloakshees. How do I deal with them if Marauders are just going to kill my stalkers?
*Points Upward* Then you are meant to get yelled at right now. This is your one opportunity to shape up. That OP lacked a replay, it lacked any real analysis of why the player lost, it didn't talk about specifics, there were no time-frame reference points that we could go to where we could see "Oh yeah, this is where his 154 supply army loses to a 125 supply army..", it's just "I can't kill cloaked banshees, I took 40 seconds out of my day to write this OP, somebody take 10 minutes spoon feeding me the answers"
It's just like Saracen said: The people responding to the OP should be taking about as much time as it took for the person to write the OP. People who write OP's like the example one above deserves answers as thought out as "Get phoenixes. Marauders can't shoot up." Because that also takes 40 seconds of thinking.
And for clarification: I'm really happy about the Purge rules now that Saracen has clarified them. He isn't out to get any lower league player by any means; he's out to get crappy posters. Big thumbs up for my swarm hero.
Holy shit, dropping the mother fucking hammer. Definitely going to go through those threads in the OP with a fine tooth comb. I briefly skimmed them, but now I'll be far more precise. I'm sure there will be plenty of idiots from Bnet who heard of us from random tournies or whatever who are going to rage hard, but I would rather have a small smart community than a large retard community (IE: Battle.net); which I guess is the general theme from the moderators around here. I know I'm just reiterating a lot of what the original post said, but I am just so simply excited yet terrified.
On April 10 2011 23:44 Perscienter wrote: I recommend making some tweaks to the software so that everyone will be forced to chose a tag from a drop-down list. That should be easy to implement. I'd also apply other colours to sticky threads, so it becomes more clear that it is mandatory to look through them. Currently there is only a purple symbol showing that they are permanent.
But I have some advice for you, too:
Your spelling is bad. Improve it or use spell-checking in the browser. Talking about grammar and spell-checking, I suggest moderators also to look for correct spelling and grammar, too. Generally the typeface should restricted to a subtle one in the whole forum. It really hurts if I can't understand postings because someone didn't bother using language properly.
1) A drop-down list is actually a good idea. (edit: cut out a sentence that was was based on untrue information, nvm)
2) Saracen's spelling is bad? I don't even know what to say, there is not a single spelling error in the post you referred to. Clearly, you read another post than I did.
3) I agree, bad language should be penalized somehow. It's an indicator for bad posting just as not thinking about the content of a post is, and it's sometimes painful to read. But I leave that to the mods, as this is an international community and not everyone speaks perfect English, I leave that to their judgement.
Actually, a drop down list wouldn't solve anything. In fact, it would make lazy posts harder to pick out because they would be miss labelled. Right now its quite easy to pick out what topics don't follow guidelines.
What I think would be nice is something like an interface to SC2 Reps for uploading/linking reps. And have the interface pop a message that warns the user that his thread may be banned without a replay if submitting without rep.
These new rules are necessary to be honest. The strategy forum is already looking much better and the threads that constantly appear on top are of good quality and well written. Keep on doing on good job Sarens, this was necessary and hopefully people will think twice before posting stupid OP's
On April 10 2011 22:45 DarkJirachi wrote: I think you can stop the holier-than-thou attitude Mr Saracen. We are humans, not the stray-dogs/cats you see on the streets. Perhaps you can put your words and thoughts across in a nicer manner? And not going I-DONT-CARE-OF-WHAT-YOU-THINK-COS-U-CAN-GTFO-IF-U-DONT-LIKE-IT attitude and use a mutually exclusive tone. Being a mod has its responsibilities and its authority, please use it in a more proper way if you will, using condescending tones to members dont make you more respected. Making sense in your post and treating others politely and respecting others do. I am not disagree-ing with your actions, but it could be put across in a more proper manner
EDIT: spelling
Oh come off it already. I respect him more for that post. I don't give a shit what his manner is? If you don't like his manner, just say so. lol "mutually exclusive tone"
Edit: All the concern trolling about "scaring away new players" is ridiculous. The forum, as it is currently moderated, is scaring away good players. New and bad players will continue to read as the moderation becomes stricter and content improves.
If you are scared, then say so and say why, with reference to specific threads you have made or might make. Otherwise, chill out and enjoy the new and improved forum.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
Please take this as constructive criticism, but I mean.. That's the case for almost everybody who could post on here, including pros. Idra could post a game and a trained eye could probably find some flaws with his macro (granted those flaws would not classify as obvious flaws, but where is the line drawn). Plus this would pretty much eliminate everyone in lower leagues from ever posting a help thread, since certainly there are obvious macro/micro problems which led to the loss.
I understand the sentiment of the rule and I agree that there should be a rule to make sure that at least the player was playing to the best of their ability. Also, I know that you cleared this up somewhat in the rest of the thread. I still think that this is going to scare off some people who might have a good contribution though (because they're the ones who are actually going to read the rules and get worried about it). My suggestion would just be to make this rule a bit clearer in terms of what you're looking for.
Totally support the initiative and I do hope the strategy forums benefit.
Holy crap some of the QQ in this thread is retarded.
All you guys that are getting your feelings hurt and your panties in a bunch need to chill out. TeamLiquid has always represented the pinnacle of Starcraft discussion in the West.
The elitist attitudes and senses of entitlement that you see around here are earned through years... yyeeaarrss of dedication to this game and this community.
I whole heartedly support a cleanup of the strategy forums, and I will applaud the warnings, deletions, and bans that are to come in the very near future.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
Please take this as constructive criticism, but I mean.. That's the case for almost everybody who could post on here, including pros. Idra could post a game and a trained eye could probably find some flaws with his macro (granted those flaws would not classify as obvious flaws, but where is the line drawn). Plus this would pretty much eliminate everyone in lower leagues from ever posting a help thread, since certainly there are obvious macro/micro problems which led to the loss.
I understand the sentiment of the rule and I agree that there should be a rule to make sure that at least the player was playing to the best of their ability. Also, I know that you cleared this up somewhat in the rest of the thread. I still think that this is going to scare off some people who might have a good contribution though (because they're the ones who are actually going to read the rules and get worried about it). My suggestion would just be to make this rule a bit clearer in terms of what you're looking for.
Totally support the initiative and I do hope the strategy forums benefit.
It applies mostly to low level players, and I think the point is if there's glaring flaws in your game its pointless to nitpick the specifics. Like if you're asking "help, TvZ how do I deal with a muta ling baneling composition" and the replay reveals you spent the entire game on 2 base while stacking 2k minerals then its just a silly question to ask
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
Please take this as constructive criticism, but I mean.. That's the case for almost everybody who could post on here, including pros. Idra could post a game and a trained eye could probably find some flaws with his macro (granted those flaws would not classify as obvious flaws, but where is the line drawn). Plus this would pretty much eliminate everyone in lower leagues from ever posting a help thread, since certainly there are obvious macro/micro problems which led to the loss.
I understand the sentiment of the rule and I agree that there should be a rule to make sure that at least the player was playing to the best of their ability. Also, I know that you cleared this up somewhat in the rest of the thread. I still think that this is going to scare off some people who might have a good contribution though (because they're the ones who are actually going to read the rules and get worried about it). My suggestion would just be to make this rule a bit clearer in terms of what you're looking for.
Totally support the initiative and I do hope the strategy forums benefit.
It applies mostly to low level players, and I think the point is if there's glaring flaws in your game its pointless to nitpick the specifics. Like if you're asking "help, TvZ how do I deal with a muta ling baneling composition" and the replay reveals you spent the entire game on 2 base while stacking 2k minerals then its just a silly question to ask
This is essentially exactly what they are working on. There were so many threads with low-level players screaming "FORCEFIELDS IMBA PvZ" then having a 2-line OP that says "i alwz lse forcfilds pvz hw do i fght thm?" After a few lines, he'll post a replay that shows that he lost because he had a grand total of 5 roaches at the 15 minute mark and was attacked by 2 Colossi, 15 Zealots, 20 Stalkers, and a couple Void Rays.
Honestly, I couldn't name a single game that I lost that I couldn't instantly say what I did badly, and what I needed to improve. Frankly, I couldn't name a single game that I won that I couldn't instantly know what I could do better. If you spend even 5 minutes looking at your game, you'll often see something you could have improved on. There's a big difference between IdrA style macro errors (ie being supply blocked for 1 second at 150 supply) and most players macro errors (ie getting supply blocked as you're being attacked).
It's not going to be a huge deal - if you put time into your OP, and search for other threads before posting it, it's doubtful that they'll ban you for it, even if it is in violation. More likely they'll simply close it and tell you what you missed.
why does TL.net moderators for years always have threads about how they're going to properly clean up the strategy forum but never do it?
If you say anything about imbalance, you will be BANNED. If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it. If you give unhelpful advice, you will be BANNED. If your post pisses me off or is just inappropriate, you will be BANNED.
this is the biggest problem i have with the strategy forum. "incorrect" advice being shot down is way too lenient period and i feel this is the absolute biggest problem with the moderaters and the strategy forum. first of all, bad topics doesnt make up the majority of the posts in the strategy forum, in fact it is a very small percentage. proof? at the time of posting, there are 30 topics in page 1 nonstickied, of these, 9 topics have over 100 posts. moderating posts in topic should be the priority rather than moderating topics. just like how moderators close threads? close posts but given the option to also read the post if you want, like how spoilers work
secondly, i don't want just "incorrect advice" being shot down, if the advice isn't great, it should be moderated. if a poster continues to post a number of posts below "great" standard in a specified amount of time, revoke his posting privilege in the strategy section.
The reason we have such strict moderation is we want people in this community to be self-sufficient, not dependent on others, and we want to keep discussion in the Strategy Forum at the highest level. That means quality guides, meaningful discussion about new builds and strategies, and asking for help only as a a last resort (but giving beneficial responses to any help threads). Being able to help yourself is key to becoming a better player, and it also, it reduces clutter in the Strategy Forum. Think about what your ideal Strategy Forum would look like.
like you stated, you want the highest level/meaningful discussion and quality posts. then remove things like the "thank you for the great post" or things that goes offtopic - posts which shows(note: i didnt add the word clearly) the poster didnt read the OP correctly. all they do is remove clutter especially in threads with multiple pages which takes a lot more time to find information that you actually need. only moderating posts which are "incorrect" simply isn't good enough, a lot of posts are only average but not necessarily of the absolute highest quality that TL wants. just because a post is "correct" may not be the answer someone wants. one way to do this is simply have high level players who are willing to moderate posts be given moderating rights in the strategy forum. honestly giving advice should also have guidelines just like how making topics has guidelines. making sure posts answers questions like:
why (eg. why build a certain composition vs another) when (eg. when you should start building this composition given scouting clues) how (eg. how to build this composition) where (eg. where you position buildings/army)
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... if T all-ins you, continue building up your economy.......................................................................................................................................................................................
obviously that isn't good advice and there should be a mod edit to correct that post
Several people are expressing concerns along these lines:
So anyone below Masters can't engage in discussion applicable to their skill level pretty much, as there is plenty of discussion that is applicable to only lower levels (core demographic of this section).
To an extent, that's true. But should we - and by we I mean anybody, of any skill level, be concerned about it? I think not, and here's why:
Getting out of bronze/silver/gold leagues is a solved problem.
In other words, pretty much all useful discussion pertinent to improving low-level play has already been had. The distillation of those discussions is readily available in any number of excellent and entertaining guides and video tutorials.
That's why we (for the most part) don't need more low-level threads. But that alone is not enough to warrant discouraging them, so here's why we (again, for the most part) shouldn't allow them:
If someone comes to TeamLiquid.net, a supposedly authoritative resource for Starcraft strategy, and sees a strategy forum dominated by ongoing low-level discussion threads (as those pushing for a relaxation of the rules must admit would be the case, according to their own argument that low-level players constitute the bulk of the SC2 player-base), he will be slower to realise that improvement at low levels is a solved problem. Everyone (including me) likes to think that they are special, with special problems requiring special solutions. Indulging that fantasy, even tacitly, is counter-productive and will retard progress; it is a disservice to those who come here seeking to improve.
If exceptions do remain to these general rules - if someone genuinely does discover a new way to be bad at the game that isn't covered by existing guides - he can still ask for [H]e[L]p without fear of reprisals, and thus will the strategy forum become more complete.
I find it ludicrous to suggest that having my interactions with the strategy forum strictly policed makes me somehow unwelcome or excluded from the TL community. It's being done for my direct benefit; how could TL possibly make it clearer that they care about me, the player? No, they don't care about me, the attention-seeker. No, they don't care about me, the guy who secretly thinks he deserves special treatment. If I want those needs pandered to, I'll have to go elsewhere. What exactly is wrong with that?
On April 10 2011 23:05 DarkJirachi wrote: EDIT2: this is a 30second response. should i get banned for posting it?
Since it clearly shows that you don't understand his intentions.....I've indeed thought about reporting you. But then again you didn't troll, you did nothing bad on purpose.
The thing is, this forum is NOT supposed to be an all-cozy-feel-good-place where you could hang out, have sum phun, chat with your dudes in some threads about irrelevant stuff. Of course this is exaggerated, but due to the awful quality of like...99% of the stuff on the whole internet, I feel like that's what many expect from TL. A place to hang out, a place to just randomly throw down their thoughts whenever they feel like it.
Yes, TL is sometimes a cruel place, sometimes elitist. But that's NOT a bad thing, it's the only thing that keeps the gigantic amount of trash-posters in line. One bordline-justified ban could help prevent 10 others from posting borderline-bad stuff. And that's a good thing. Yes, maybe one out of ten decent, intelligent posters may be too afraid to post. In my opinion this is completely acceptable, if it helps keep the trash out. There are literally hundres of sc2-sites where you can also literally post whatever you want. Nobody "forces" anyone to post in TL - let alone TL-strategy. Yes, that's also a very important point, nobody gets prevented from cheering in TL-tournament or talking about random sc2-related stuff in general anyways.
Another thing is, that many have the feeling, that only grandmaster-like posters should be allowed to give advice or post anything but questions. I, myself can easily counter that argument: I'm highlighted and yet I'm a low master player. I haven't even had time to ladder in season 2 (I stick to customs to keep up) and in season 1 I was far from being a high-ranked player. And still, somehow the effort I had put into my posts convinced the mods that I was worthy of being even given the highlighted status. Therefore, don't pretend as if it was your gaming-skill that was the reason for you being - potentially - shut down. Trust me on that, it is 100% the quality of your posts and nothing else.
LOL but I dont post on the forums, like seriously. People either treat you not seriously enough, or they take you too seriously and you get yourself landed in some hot soup or heated argument.
You see. I agree with what HE is doing, and I get your point. HARSH ACTIONS like these are justifiable. But the manner the gets people to know and be prepared for the purges are like seriously O.o, I dont post on the forums, but I see lots of threads, both trash and high-quality ones, and I agree that this purge is much needed. However, his words and language may not be as justifiable as his actions. Cursing and swearing in a post to make people understand how crossed you are is totally not right. If I went to post in that kind of tone and used such language, I undoubtedly would get banned for it. But him using such language on us to express his frustration/anger/pissed-ness? I am trying to get HIM to understand that him doing beneficial things for the community does not grant him the authority to use such language to reflect his anger or what not and mind his language since he IS a mod and should/would need to set examples for others to obey/listen to him.
I think it bears clarifying for anyone to which this is somewhat unclear to. About what DarkJirachi is trying to say, that while he strongly agrees with what Saracen and other mod's are doing about this issue, as do any of us who want the strategy forum to become an idyllic place, he does not condone how this information is being represented/disseminated. It's not a matter of hurt feelings, or being too sensitive to the issue, it's about overstepping ones bounds, and those who go out of their way to insult someone to get their point across are overstepping their bounds.
Let me clarify, if I say something that is stupid, and it's been known to happen , If I am to be corrected, should I be corrected, or corrected and insulted, if surreptitiously. A surreptitious insult is still an insult, and I could expect that from teenagers, but I'm assuming that most of the admins on this site are at least close to my age (28) and that this kind of behavior at this point is just unacceptable.
Here's an example:
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't.
The key words here are shot down obviously. The rest of this is worded perfectly, it's that the usage of those words goes just beyond what is required. It could've easily been re-worded to something like CORRECTED, something more precise and far less antagonistic. I'm not saying that those who give bad advice shouldn't be warned, in fact some will need to be as they will only learn from that, but these comments not only aren't necessary, but also undermine that persons authority. The problem with this is that by holding the community to high standards you expect certain things to come along with those high standards, including behavior. When that doesn't happen those high standards become modular, and that's a problem for reasons that I shouldn't need to spell out.
I'm not offended by what's been said per se, I just am very disappointed at the level of maturity that was originally shown by those moderating. I can completely understand where they are coming from, it's a tough job, but the hallmark of someone who's professional shouldn't let that bleed into their job, regardless of their personal feelings.
tl:dr; To reiterate, I agree with the necessity of this purge, just not how it's being verbally delivered at certain times.
On April 11 2011 22:50 DarkJirachi wrote:However, his words and language may not be as justifiable as his actions. Cursing and swearing in a post to make people understand how crossed you are is totally not right.
If I'm in a room with an angry bear, I'd much rather know it was angry.
On April 11 2011 22:50 DarkJirachi wrote:However, his words and language may not be as justifiable as his actions. Cursing and swearing in a post to make people understand how crossed you are is totally not right.
If I'm in a room with an angry bear, I'd much rather know it was angry.
We know it's angry because of the severity of the language, but the added repartee is not necessary for us to know that. This would be if say the bear attacked as a matter of course to get it's point across that it's angry, it's unnecessary, you know by its posture.
As a frequent reader and occasional poster, I think its great that the mods have decided to no longer put up with bullshit. I lurked here every day for months but I only signed up and began posting when a terrible OP caught my attention and I realized someone NEEDED a serious flaming for taking 30 seconds to write something that would rudely force itself into the lives of dozens of innocent readers.
IMHO if you think you need to confront Saracen and TL staff for being an elitest or suppressing the rights of nOObs you are missing the point. This forum should be a place for reading and learning, not promoting your own e-ego and your sense of self importance. Measure twice, post once (if needed).
I'm glad that there's a thread here like this. It's a great post that you can refer banned users to, because 90% of TLers aren't going to read it before they violate it.
Would it be impossible to implement a league forum. For example, you need to be Diamond+ in order to post in this forum or on this thread and legitimacy could be checked through sc2ranks or something. This would also stop banned people from getting new accounts.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't.
The key words here are shot down obviously. The rest of this is worded perfectly, it's that the usage of those words goes just beyond what is required. It could've easily been re-worded to something like CORRECTED, something more precise and far less antagonistic. I'm not saying that those who give bad advice shouldn't be warned, in fact some will need to be as they will only learn from that, but these comments not only aren't necessary, but also undermine that persons authority.
You know, it used to say BANNED. Why? Because there is an overabundance of people who think their experiences at #1 in their division (regardless of which league it's in) gives them the qualifications necessary to post advice with impunity. We're not going to give them a little slap on the hand and say "try harder next time." We've been doing that for god knows how long, actually. If they actually think they're right, they'd better be willing to bet their life (or at least, their posting rights or their perceived reputation) on it. So yes, if someone posts incorrect advice, I'm going to edit his post with bold red letters and say "you're wrong don't listen to this guy." I think it's a little less ambiguous about what went wrong than "User was warned for this post." And it's a little more helpful to random people who want to learn from the thread when trying to filter out advice.
And reading your previous posts, it's obvious you haven't been around here for very long. You may carry your own standards of what you expect TL to be, and they may or may not differ from what the TL community expects. To be honest, TL has changed significantly every since SC2 was released, some for the better, and some for the worse. And as you have pointed out, with those changes comes changes to things like expectations from moderators. But believe it or not, there's also been a deep history and rich culture (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=119460) that affects the way we post perhaps as much as how we want to be perceived by others. Sometimes that means not always playing the role of the politician if that's what most effectively gets our point across. And when the same question's already been answered in a calm and tactful manner multiple times in the thread, I personally don't mind pushing someone's buttons with my response.
Now tell me, have you ever seen anything like this in the SC2 forum? Do you want to? Then support the purge! I'd gladly trade my posting privileges for the chance that a progamer actually puts this kind of effort into the community. Yet whenever you watch a stream of a pro who reads teamliquid in between games, you see this:
Let's all do our part in making teamliquid.net a better place!
+1 for sure, modding the way it should be done. Enforce the rules well enough and things will fall into line. I'll start coming to TL a lot more if the forums are better organized.
I honestly never use the strategy forum ever, because of all the issues outlined above. I am very excited about this purge, and hopefully it might bring some of the tourny players back.
Remember when Artosis and Rekrul and iNcontroL and etc. used to do some heavy theory-crafting about certain builds and strong counters and all of that, like 5 years ago? I would love to see Sheth, Tyler, Sjow, and all of the current big name players return to the forums and do the same thing. Probably a pipe dream though...
I don't follow SC2 threads enough to be bugged by the horrible posting personally, but I'm glad posters all over TL will be shared up by this or banned.
I still want to point out again that correct spelling should be mandatory and the thread tags could be added to the thread creation page either per drop-down menu or manually.
On April 13 2011 23:33 Perscienter wrote: I still want to point out again that correct spelling should be mandatory and the thread tags could be added to the thread creation page either per drop-down menu or manually.
Everyone can make a mistake, and I think perfect spelling is to weed out a few too many of the brilliant minds of TL. One should look over the text a couple of times before posting an OP though, for sure.
I wonder though, will the quality check extend to the rest of TL in the future?
On April 14 2011 06:35 Nemasyst.598 wrote: I love this, but it scares the crap out of me. :O
If you're posting and are below high Masters, it should. This place is supposed to be about builds that can revolutionize the metagame. Every OP should be about something new, well thought out and well explained with reasons why it works at a high level of play.
It's the only way Pros will come back. They left because they were being flooded with noobs who thought they knew how to play because they were in diamond.
hahaha this is awesome, I remember when I posted a help thread on BW strat forum xD i read it 5 times and basically shat my pants for 30 minutes after posting. LOL (it was one of my 1st threads on TL)
Does this purge include guys with low post counts not being able to start threads? I spent a good 2 hours on my first replay analysis, only to lose the thing when I hit "preview" due to some permission thing. It's a shame, I think it was a good one. Perhaps it was a recent temp-ban I received...hell if I know, couldn't find anything suggesting that would be the case.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [D]/[I] threads:
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will beBANNED.
No offense to reddit, im addicted to that shit, but we DO NOT want our strategy forum to be like r/starcraft. All it is is very low level players just spewing out shit. I don't even play 1v1s currently, but it makes me cry. Reddit obviously can't do anything about their posters because moderators aren't there to look for incorrect information etc. I like to read correct information about strategy from people that know what they are talking about.
Wow way too harsh. You can't blame a player for wondering why he lost. If it is a result of bad macro, then so be it. You can't ban someone for being bad xD
On April 15 2011 01:05 Dismantlethethroat wrote: Wow way too harsh. You can't blame a player for wondering why he lost. If it is a result of bad macro, then so be it. You can't ban someone for being bad xD
You are misunderstanding the point here. If a player is bad but actually tries to look at the replay and see why he lost as well as engage other places to find out information before making a thread about why they lost, they will not be banned.
If a player merely posts a thread "why did I lose" without trying to figure that out themselves then they will be banned. Being good or bad has nothing to do with this.
On April 14 2011 13:22 Rotodyne wrote: No offense to reddit, im addicted to that shit, but we DO NOT want our strategy forum to be like r/starcraft. All it is is very low level players just spewing out shit. I don't even play 1v1s currently, but it makes me cry. Reddit obviously can't do anything about their posters because moderators aren't there to look for incorrect information etc. I like to read correct information about strategy from people that know what they are talking about.
Quite true.
I think /r/starcraft is a great place for lower-level players to ask simple questions simply because the upvote/downvote system is a serviceable alternative to the lack of moderators. Low-level posts receive few upvotes yet might still get a few decent replies, thus achieving discussion without outright replacing higher level material (though it's not a perfect system considering the memes and hivemind rage that still gets through to the front page).
I really hope for the TL SC2 Strat section to improve tremendously in time. Perhaps someday, Cecil's epic guide will become the norm.
I <3 this. It was about time, I have often seen posts that were just pointless, or even straight up bad advice. This should make the strategy forum a better place I do have the idea that a few people missed this thread though, seeing how some people still manage to get banned. Oh well. Wish I was better at the game so I could contribute something to TL
There has to be a balance between policing that legit/viable strategies are shared/discussed and a few other nonstandard exploratory/risky ones too. So far I don't see TL totally discouraged by the purge. This could be good, if only they share honest well thought of strategies, regardless of the eventual nonviability of it.
IMO, the purge should be more to discourage laziness and idiocy at the same time encourage crazy new ones. So far i think balance is kept.
Poll: A week after the PURGE, it the SC2 Strat better now?
No (Harsher punishments pls) (42)
76%
Yes (Good Job Everyone!) (13)
24%
55 total votes
Your vote: A week after the PURGE, it the SC2 Strat better now?
(Vote): Yes (Good Job Everyone!) (Vote): No (Harsher punishments pls)
Without a doubt the forum is getting better. The only problem I have with it all is that some people are getting away with a warning/nothing at all (other than their thread closed) when they should be getting bans.
I think that unless the mod's get even stricter (as in they follow the rules to a t, and ban people for even the most minor transgressions) the forum will go back to how it used to be, as people will think they can get away with it. Allow minor things to go unpunished and it wont be long before people start pushing their luck and posting trash.
If you argue with a highlighted user/known player without good reason, you will be BANNED. Why? It's a privilege to have these guys posting advice here. They don't gain anything from giving you advice, and treating them with anything less than the respect they deserve only chases them away. So ask yourself this: do you really want pros posting in your threads? If so, be respectful. If not, you probably don't belong here. But fear not, there are plenty of other strategy forums you could be posting in.
I've noticed there's been somewhat less fire and brimstone doled out than was advertised in the gospel according to Saracen; is this the calm before the storm, or are people just not drinking heavily enough yet?
I applaud this effort. After finally registering for a TL account 11 months ago, I read through the strat forum once and never did so again. I don't expect I'll ever have anything worthwhile to post there, but I would really like to see higher quality advice more reliably available to average players like myself.
all looks good, we want higher quality posts - one small thing that concerns me is that obvious micro/macro errors in replays will = ban, basically anyone diamond or below will always have obvious micro or macro errors, especially platinum and below, i know you stated in this thread that you dont care what league someone is in, but its literally impossible for a platinum/gold etc guy to play without very obvious macro flaws, maybe update to add that the guys macro/micro has to be bad for his league? (aka much worse than his opponent for some reason, assuming its a ladder match replay)
im saying this as a platinum player, i know every game i play has flaws in its fundementals, and right now id fear posting a replay based on that - even if im still confused why i lost despite this, because (for example) the other guys macro was equally flawed
i dont disagree that it would be great to have higher quality posts in the strategy forum nor am i claiming to be the most super-able contributor either however this stuck out to me so i decided to write this post
If you argue with a highlighted user/known player without good reason, you will be BANNED. Why? It's a privilege to have these guys posting advice here. They don't gain anything from giving you advice, and treating them with anything less than the respect they deserve only chases them away. So ask yourself this: do you really want pros posting in your threads? If so, be respectful. If not, you probably don't belong here. But fear not, there are plenty of other strategy forums you could be posting in.
You should change 'argue without good reason' to something more specific. That's too general when you don't define 'good reason.'
Maybe something like 'If you cannot backup your point, don't argue [with a blue poster]'.
Pretty good rules, the only one I'm concerned about is the [H]-thread requirements. Obviously if a newbie knew how to analyze his reply, spot his macro/micro mistakes or simply understand a not-so-intuitive fact like "marauders counter roaches" he would not require the guidance of other TL members.
Maybe a separate forum where newbies can roam free? But tbh probably way more trouble than worth.
This is really awesome, because honestly I was told by a lot of my friends to stay away from the strategy forum as a majority of it was just plain wrong information or theorycrafting that had no substance. Hopefully this allow me to browse the strategy section with confidence!
I agree with Tahrazer, I feel unable to ever post a replay because obviously, as a Silver just getting back into the game, I'm going to have huge macro flaws. And the problem is, that'll be true even though my macro has improved a lot.
I guess if your intent was to encourage below-diamond players to shut up, listen, and improve on their own that's cool, but honestly, if the rules had been this strict when I started posting I'd be a lot worse than I am now, simply because I gained an appreciation for HOW to analyze my play and HOW bad my macro really was. It's very easy to "give yourself a break" in such a difficult game; SC2 is so competitive at even the silver level (for people like me who have never competitively played an RTS) that you don't realize how terrible your seemingly-minor mistakes are.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
How do you circumvent the problem if the user in question does not have an account on the US servers, or may lose to you due to other reasons rather than a necessarily flawed build?
EDIT Also voicing the idea that maybe adding a subforum directed to help players only might also redirect a lot of unnecessary threats, while still allowing players like the ones posted above me who know about their micro and macro issues but still seek out advice because they also know they failed in other areas but are uncertain how to analyze it at that point.
I also realize such a subforum could get messy, but this was also bound to happen when the TL forums opened up to the public and was not only limited to pros, since the majority of the SC2 players are not found in diamond and above.
I do believe there must be a solution to be found that does not necessarily disencourage players to not post but still realize they need more help than the knowledge they possess themselves when analyzing a game.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
How do you circumvent the problem if the user in question does not have an account on the US servers, or may lose to you due to other reasons rather than a necessarily flawed build?
By having a damn good analysis with replays to back it up. I don't think that's out of anyone's capability to complete.
If I can find another ongoing discussion on the same topic, you will be BANNED.
Does this apply to guides too? In most cases, a bad guide won't be ongoing and probably won't apply to the new rules anyways. However, if somebody thinks they can improve on a decent guide where the discussion has slowed , should they be allowed to try?
Also voicing the idea that maybe adding a subforum directed to help players only might also redirect a lot of unnecessary threats, while still allowing players like the ones posted above me who know about their micro and macro issues but still seek out advice because they also know they failed in other areas but are uncertain how to analyze it at that point.
To make my earlier point again: visitors to the site construct their mental image of the state of the game based on the site contents. Getting out of bronze/silver/gold/plat is pretty much a solved problem, and the forums should reflect that: lots of guides, very few low level help threads. If you introduce a slackly moderated forum for such threads, what are visitors going to think? And will it help them improve?
On April 21 2011 03:15 [Atomic]Peace wrote: Should we report posts that violate these guidelines? I've been doing it but I'm worried that will clog up your inbox...
It was stated earlier in the thread that if a mod feels you are using the report feature too much they will tell you so. Until then report away! (using good judgment of course)
On April 21 2011 03:15 [Atomic]Peace wrote: Should we report posts that violate these guidelines? I've been doing it but I'm worried that will clog up your inbox...
It was stated earlier in the thread that if a mod feels you are using the report feature too much they will tell you so. Until then report away! (using good judgment of course)
On April 20 2011 11:58 Umpteen wrote: Getting out of bronze/silver/gold/plat is pretty much a solved problem, and the forums should reflect that: lots of guides, very few low level help threads.
The specific case where a low-level help thread might be valuable is where someone has read the guides and still doesn't understand how to achieve what the guides are recommending. Having a different place for this than the Strategy forum would keep the high-level discussion less cluttered and more distinct, but there still could be a place for people who just don't know how to evaluate what they're looking at in a lost game.
On April 20 2011 11:58 Umpteen wrote: Getting out of bronze/silver/gold/plat is pretty much a solved problem, and the forums should reflect that: lots of guides, very few low level help threads.
The specific case where a low-level help thread might be valuable is where someone has read the guides and still doesn't understand how to achieve what the guides are recommending. Having a different place for this than the Strategy forum would keep the high-level discussion less cluttered and more distinct, but there still could be a place for people who just don't know how to evaluate what they're looking at in a lost game.
I'm not 100% sure what you're describing. If you can't follow the existing guides on analysing and improving your own play, why not just post a request for clarification in the guide thread? So long as you demonstrate you've read the OP, and provide a replay - and ask nicely - I'm sure people will be more than happy to help out. Which will also keep the most popular guides bumped, and if necessary updated and improved.
On April 22 2011 08:30 FinestHour wrote: So far its just been a ton closed threads and not much actual warning/banning going on, idk if it seems that way for anyone else.
There has been a ton of warnings / bans right as the purge began. Since then the spam has decreased significantly. I am really glad that this seems to be working at least somewhat. The forum isn't where it should be by a long shot yet but it has definitely improved just from 1 or 2 months ago.
On April 22 2011 08:30 FinestHour wrote: So far its just been a ton closed threads and not much actual warning/banning going on, idk if it seems that way for anyone else.
There has been a ton of warnings / bans right as the purge began. Since then the spam has decreased significantly. I am really glad that this seems to be working at least somewhat. The forum isn't where it should be by a long shot yet but it has definitely improved just from 1 or 2 months ago.
most definitely and I for one thank you Zatic. I know I was guilty of it a few times when I was newer but the factual, analytical threads are appearing more and more often and are much appreciated
Looks like TL isn't the 'understanding mentor' type xD. If you'll forgive me for saying so, it seems a bit harsh to dish out bans for making a post with a flawed strategy. A flaw in my strategy is usually the main reason I make a thread. I know this is to stop every user making a thread when they just need a good read of a build order, but to be perfectly honest I'm plainly scared of the punishment I'll get for doing anything wrong o_O
On April 28 2011 07:42 HavokTheorem wrote: Looks like TL isn't the 'understanding mentor' type xD. If you'll forgive me for saying so, it seems a bit harsh to dish out bans for making a post with a flawed strategy. A flaw in my strategy is usually the main reason I make a thread. I know this is to stop every user making a thread when they just need a good read of a build order, but to be perfectly honest I'm plainly scared of the punishment I'll get for doing anything wrong o_O
As long as you put some effort into your OP, nothing bad will happen to you. As responding to OPs, if you shouldn't be giving advice, then don't. If you're the OP, you don't want a bunch of potentially incorrect pieces of advice, do you?
On April 28 2011 07:42 HavokTheorem wrote: Looks like TL isn't the 'understanding mentor' type xD. If you'll forgive me for saying so, it seems a bit harsh to dish out bans for making a post with a flawed strategy. A flaw in my strategy is usually the main reason I make a thread. I know this is to stop every user making a thread when they just need a good read of a build order, but to be perfectly honest I'm plainly scared of the punishment I'll get for doing anything wrong o_O
As long as you put some effort into your OP, nothing bad will happen to you. As responding to OPs, if you shouldn't be giving advice, then don't. If you're the OP, you don't want a bunch of potentially incorrect pieces of advice, do you?
So, to what extent may one differentiate between a lowly nub, and a basement dwelling, four eyed, jew with money issues and a history of sexual violence (as seen above)?
Such draconian ZOMG YOU WILL BE BANNED moderation and mod-rage is really not terribly constructive, in my opinion. Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of thing (having BANNED in red caps twenty times in a post) makes anyone below high masters terrified to post here.
First of all, even if that were the effect, would that be a bad thing? No. However, it is not. In the Broodwar days these were the rules and we had many good threads from D-/D/C-/C players asking for advice, trying to analyze their own rep, not realizing their mistake, etc....and/or asking about a strategy in a matchup on a particular map, and asking for reps, etc... These rules make anyone below high masters scared to act like they know shit. NOT the same thing as making them afraid to post altogether. And, in an objective sense, thats a good thing.
Whether it is the intent or not, this sort of police-statery will have a chilling effect on well-intentioned discussion. Yes, I realize that the TL staff can do whatever they want with their webspace, and that people who don't like it are free to go elsewhere; the problem is that some people who you don't want to stop posting *will* likely stop posting and/or go elsewhere.
and TL won't miss them. Do you even know TL? I can imagine Kennigit sitting at his comp at 4AM, drunk, going "Don't let the door hit you on the way back kiddie." . No matter how much he cares about TL, he'd do that until there are only the core members left if it came down to that. Becuase TL is principled, we are not motherfucking 4chan "take anyone who comes like a fucking whore"...
I feel that there are less merciless and less exclusive ways to improve the quality of posting on the strategy forum.
you aren't a mod. you aren't a known person. you aren't even a cool guy based on this whiny ass post. shut the fuck up i dont think anyone cares about your 'ways'.
Also, perhaps the place for the super-high-level, exhaustively-researched, took-five-hours-to-write posts that this post seems to encourage is Liquipedia? I notice that its SC2 strategy section is missing coverage of some fundamental topics.
i can think of hundreds, if not thousands of broodwar strat forum posts that follow all these guidelines, that took well under 10 minutes to type. unless ur like .01 word per minute...
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: [*]If your post pisses me off or is just inappropriate, you will be BANNED.
I see a raging Mod, but i missed the /ragequit.
Whats so wrong with the Strategy Forum ?
I'll give you some examples:
- [p] 3 cybernatics cors - vible? (the guy is in bronze and does a 1 gate, 3 cyber to get +1/+1 air weapons and hallucinate, then uses hallucinated pheonixes to try and convince his protoss opponent that he opened stargate).
- how did i los this (pvZ)? (after watching a 3 hour replay, you notice that he never built more than 3 harvesters, and that his "dark templar + VR + warp prism opening with +2 shields" had no units until 45 minutes in)
- zerg is so OP! (some guy saying something silly that no one has ever thought was OP, like corruptors, are completely OP because they beat him at silver every time).
Honestly, topics like that wouldn't have been out of place in the pre-purge Strategy forum.
My major problem with the strategy forum is that people ask the same shit day after day after day. I wish we had copy paste some template about Macro/Micro + close to anyone who isn't atleast in diamond. I think people like that should just be auto banned from the strategy forum and redirected to this thread every time they try to click "create new thread" or "post reply"
Hell, I even got demoted to Platinum in season 2 because I knew my macro and micro were shit. I hate that many other people that say "#1 in my bronze/silver/gold/platinum division" come into TL Strategy forum and act oblivious to all their shortcomings.
Anyway, I'm glad this purge is happening and I hope the strategy forum will blossom into actual discussion and a plethora of solid guides.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [Q] threads:
If I can find the answer to your thread using the search function, you will be BANNED.
If I can answer your thread in a few sentences, you will be BANNED (Hint: Simple Questions Simple Answers thread).
Out of curiosity, say someone does use the search function, simply uses improper key words thus never finds the relevant thread. And another member quickly links them to the appropriate location, and the user admits his mistakes and specifically requests a mod to close the thread, would that still yield a ban?
Additionally, what if a player has found relevant threads, but still has answered questions even after reading through said relevant threads, and opens a new one to ask specific questions related to but not enclosed within the related threads?
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN AND RIDICULED. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
How much leeway will people be given to shoot others down exactly? :D
On April 10 2011 07:20 Saracen wrote: Updated the OP to make things a little more clear and fun for everyone:
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN AND RIDICULED. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
How much leeway will people be given to shoot others down exactly? :D
You can call out bad advice without fear of the ban hammer, unless you clearly break rules while doing so. Just make sure to give correct advice as a replacement so the readers can be educated.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [Q] threads:
If I can find the answer to your thread using the search function, you will be BANNED.
If I can answer your thread in a few sentences, you will be BANNED (Hint: Simple Questions Simple Answers thread).
Out of curiosity, say someone does use the search function, simply uses improper key words thus never finds the relevant thread. And another member quickly links them to the appropriate location, and the user admits his mistakes and specifically requests a mod to close the thread, would that still yield a ban?
Additionally, what if a player has found relevant threads, but still has answered questions even after reading through said relevant threads, and opens a new one to ask specific questions related to but not enclosed within the related threads?
Thanks in advance.
Contrary to popular belief, I'm not Mr. Ragehammer-Ban-Happy-Mod, nor am I a ban robot who is incapable of understanding non-ban-related emotions and scenarios.
On April 10 2011 07:20 Saracen wrote: Updated the OP to make things a little more clear and fun for everyone:
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN AND RIDICULED. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
How much leeway will people be given to shoot others down exactly? :D
As long as you explain why he's wrong and don't threaten to kill his mother or something, you're fine. Being right also helps.
Hmm, I'd like to start out with saying that I'm loving this purge. It really seems to be the only way to keep this particular forum to the TL standard.
What I'm wondering is how strictly the rules in Saracen's OP will be enforced. Yesterday I spent a little time reporting some awful threads here, and they were all dealt with eventually. Just now I opened the forum overview and there are quite a few thread that have been there for quite a while that don't follow the tagging standard, which I'd say is the most basic tell that someone hasn't read this thread (or the threads that are in the OP). Basically, this is what I'm talking about:
I like the screenshot because it also includes travis' thread. Now, he didn't tag it, but he seems to have a good understanding of the game and did put some effort into it. I feel like this could easily be solved by a mod by editing the title and just adding the [G] tag. As for the other threads, they're pretty bad, some are just horrible.
I realize a lot of mods are probably busy dealing with reports from all over the forums and might not have the time to check the latest threads on this forum. Personally, I'd feel stupid reporting travis' thread considering he's a veteran here and the OP itself is decent, but just lacks a tag. I guess my question is, should I report all of these so that it's easier for the mods to deal with the threads, or should I stick to reporting the very obvious, insta-close/warn/ban threads? Is the purge's main purpose perhaps to just make users think twice before clicking the post button, but not necessarily be as strict as it initially sounds like?
Anyhow, keep it up, TL mods. You're doing a great job.
Ummm I don't know if you guys have noticed but when the purge was first introduced, everyone was making better threads. However, now I feel that the strategy section is slowly going back to where it was prior to the purge. (Look at all the threads being made lately)
This is a good move for the strategy forum. At first I was really interested to what people have to say but as time went by I noticed that the a large percentage of the quality of posts there was absolutely horrible. I don't think I need to go into detail into that.
Lets hope this forum will become more constructive now.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [Q] threads:
If I can find the answer to your thread using the search function, you will be BANNED.
If I can answer your thread in a few sentences, you will be BANNED (Hint: Simple Questions Simple Answers thread).
Out of curiosity, say someone does use the search function, simply uses improper key words thus never finds the relevant thread. And another member quickly links them to the appropriate location, and the user admits his mistakes and specifically requests a mod to close the thread, would that still yield a ban?
Additionally, what if a player has found relevant threads, but still has answered questions even after reading through said relevant threads, and opens a new one to ask specific questions related to but not enclosed within the related threads?
Thanks in advance.
Contrary to popular belief, I'm not Mr. Ragehammer-Ban-Happy-Mod, nor am I a ban robot who is incapable of understanding non-ban-related emotions and scenarios.
Haha, my apologies, I did not mean to offend. I've actually only been around these forums for a bit (registered within this past month), but I figured I'd ask and know all the rules before hand and avoid troubles entirely rather than skirt along the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
On May 15 2011 21:53 MinoMino wrote: Hmm, I'd like to start out with saying that I'm loving this purge. It really seems to be the only way to keep this particular forum to the TL standard.
What I'm wondering is how strictly the rules in Saracen's OP will be enforced. Yesterday I spent a little time reporting some awful threads here, and they were all dealt with eventually. Just now I opened the forum overview and there are quite a few thread that have been there for quite a while that don't follow the tagging standard, which I'd say is the most basic tell that someone hasn't read this thread (or the threads that are in the OP). Basically, this is what I'm talking about:
I like the screenshot because it also includes travis' thread. Now, he didn't tag it, but he seems to have a good understanding of the game and did put some effort into it. I feel like this could easily be solved by a mod by editing the title and just adding the [G] tag. As for the other threads, they're pretty bad, some are just horrible.
I realize a lot of mods are probably busy dealing with reports from all over the forums and might not have the time to check the latest threads on this forum. Personally, I'd feel stupid reporting travis' thread considering he's a veteran here and the OP itself is decent, but just lacks a tag. I guess my question is, should I report all of these so that it's easier for the mods to deal with the threads, or should I stick to reporting the very obvious, insta-close/warn/ban threads? Is the purge's main purpose perhaps to just make users think twice before clicking the post button, but not necessarily be as strict as it initially sounds like?
Anyhow, keep it up, TL mods. You're doing a great job.
Don't report things like that. Those things are easy for me to notice and I'll take care of them.
If we decide to play you in a BO3 to prove the validity of a strategy, how will it go down (i.e. am I allowed to proxy 2gate if the proposed build is something completely different/will you 6pool against a greedy build)?
On May 16 2011 08:26 101toss wrote: If we decide to play you in a BO3 to prove the validity of a strategy, how will it go down (i.e. am I allowed to proxy 2gate if the proposed build is something completely different/will you 6pool against a greedy build)?
No. You do your build you outlined in the OP, I do my counter build. I'll tell you what I'm going to do beforehand if I'm feeling generous. This happens at most 2 times. Then, I ban you indefinitely from the Strategy Forum and post the replays into the thread while everyone points and laughs.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
sweet... BO3 i'm beginning to like whoever this saracen dude is...
i think there should be a link for drafting strategies... like where the paint is still wet... (and people can vote a post into a draft stage or out of a draft stage)
i have a lot of new strats but it takes a long time to flesh out and "prove"...especially if i can't access very good players frequently...or if i do, i usually can't get the replay..
On May 15 2011 21:53 MinoMino wrote: Hmm, I'd like to start out with saying that I'm loving this purge. It really seems to be the only way to keep this particular forum to the TL standard.
What I'm wondering is how strictly the rules in Saracen's OP will be enforced. Yesterday I spent a little time reporting some awful threads here, and they were all dealt with eventually. Just now I opened the forum overview and there are quite a few thread that have been there for quite a while that don't follow the tagging standard, which I'd say is the most basic tell that someone hasn't read this thread (or the threads that are in the OP). Basically, this is what I'm talking about:
I like the screenshot because it also includes travis' thread. Now, he didn't tag it, but he seems to have a good understanding of the game and did put some effort into it. I feel like this could easily be solved by a mod by editing the title and just adding the [G] tag. As for the other threads, they're pretty bad, some are just horrible.
I realize a lot of mods are probably busy dealing with reports from all over the forums and might not have the time to check the latest threads on this forum. Personally, I'd feel stupid reporting travis' thread considering he's a veteran here and the OP itself is decent, but just lacks a tag. I guess my question is, should I report all of these so that it's easier for the mods to deal with the threads, or should I stick to reporting the very obvious, insta-close/warn/ban threads? Is the purge's main purpose perhaps to just make users think twice before clicking the post button, but not necessarily be as strict as it initially sounds like?
Anyhow, keep it up, TL mods. You're doing a great job.
I wouldn't have thought that missing the appropriate tag in the title would be cause for an imediate ban, better to tell the person of their mistake and let the mods change it. If the thread is obviously lacking and half thought out then by all means report them and let the ban hammer crush them
I'm looking forward to the new strategy forum now! I wish there was some other way to purge out the 'useless' posts, but honestly it was getting out of hand. Mods will have a lot of work ahead of them to purge the board. But in the long run it will be better, bringing back the TL standard to the forums!
Yea this is a great idea and I agree with it 100%, but ...
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
.. lol? are you serious? ...so what happens when you lose in the BO3? this sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, no offense.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
.. lol? are you serious? ...so what happens when you lose in the BO3? this sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, no offense.
If he has reason to play you in a BO3, odds are your strategy is terrible and you won't beat him (he's a masters zerg iirc so he's skilled, but I don't know how PvP, TvT, etc. builds will go down)
Just came across this and am so happy. I rarely posted in strategy because frankly I dont think I have the knowledge to help and as far as improving I prefer to self-learn, practice, or just read up/watch replays. That said I stopped reading the Strategy forum months ago because of how terrible it had become it simply wasn't worth my time filtering through all the muck. Now you have highlighted posters, a mod with a ready ban hammer and a purge. Im so happy that I will be puttering back here much more often now even if it is just to lurk and read. Thnx!
Would it be a good idea to add in some more levels of punishment for not following the guidelines?
Someone makes a crummy thread without searching, without a reply, without analysis or evidence. Instead of giving them a warning or just out right banning them, could you just stop them from creating threads for X amount of time and link them to this thread? Alot of people make new threads and are seemingly oblivious to the forum guidelines, once told about them they realise their mistake, although i haven't seen any of them do anything about it.
Also, could you add make it so that you must have X number of posts before creating a thread? So hopefully new people will see how a thread should be laid out
Edit: Actually, that second idea sucks. It would just result in more spam posts Edit 2: Spelling :D
I look at the strat forum section right now, in the top 5 topics I see 0 tags... ok, 2 of the topics are this one, and the simple question simple answer one, but still.. A lot of the time, even is the post is good, people are lazy to put a tag on it. It is so simple, yet they don't do it. meh, its just annoying...
Way to go TL.net! I like this new crack down, instant justice system. I don't ever post anyway because I'm a total scrub. But its hard to improve with literally a thousand people yelling and rambling on forums. Nevertheless, this site continues to impress me on a daily basis. Bravo!
This is something the forum has been missing for a while. May I suggest a group of recruits/interns policing the forums to enforce the aforementioned rules and restrictions? With proper application/screening process, this could take some work off of your hands and make sure things get done right.
Well.. I better be careful about what I say.. I already was being careful but now I better be REALLY careful or my ass is looking at some painful bans.. and I feel like saracen will enjoy them..
I've been away from TL (and SC2) for 2-3 months so I'm reading this now for the first time.
If I may echo most of the sentiments of the first 10-12 pages, thank you TL mod team!! The SC2 Strat forum was getting way out of control, now maybe I can actually find useful posts and write-ups...
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: You may or may not have seen the purge thread. You may or may not have read the Stickied threads. You may or may not have seen the various awesome guides on TL for improving your gameplay. Hell, you may not even know about the search function. If you haven't read all of these, read them NOW:
The bottom line is: I've been moderating the Strategy Forum pretty diligently for the past week and I'm getting sick of it. There's a huge difference between where the Strategy Forum is at right now and where we want it to be. No more warnings, no more closures with friendly explanations.
For those of you posting threads:
If you don't properly tag your thread, your thread will be CLOSED.
If it's clear to me you haven't read one of the threads linked above, you will be BANNED.
For those of you posting [H]/[L] threads:
If you do not post a replay, you will be BANNED.
If you do not attempt to analyze your game, you will be BANNED.
If I watch your replay and there are obvious flaws (macro, micro, etc.) in your game that contribute to your loss, you will be BANNED (Hint: read the Analyzing Replays thread and the How to Improve thread). Why? Because if you care enough about your gameplay to clutter up the Strategy Forum with another [H] thread, then you care enough to spend time by yourself to actually improve. Basically, this is if I feel you are being lazy and having others do work for you when you have put in minimal effort yourself.
For those of you posting [Q] threads:
If I can find the answer to your thread using the search function, you will be BANNED.
If I can answer your thread in a few sentences, you will be BANNED (Hint: Simple Questions Simple Answers thread).
For those of you posting [G] threads:
If I feel it sucks, it will be CLOSED.
If I feel it doesn't contain enough information, it will be CLOSED.
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.
For those of you posting [D]/[I] threads:
If I can find another ongoing discussion on the same topic, you will be BANNED.
If you're posting an [I] thread, if it's clear you haven't tried your idea before posting about it, you will be BANNED.
If you talk about imbalance or make balance suggestions, you will be BANNED. We're not here to change the game - that's Blizzard's job (or take it to SC2 General if you must). We're here to do the best with what we have.
If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED.
If your thread doesn't apply at a high enough level, it will be CLOSED.
For those of you responding to threads:
If you say anything about imbalance, you will be BANNED.
If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it.
If you give unhelpful advice, you will be BANNED.
If your post pisses me off or is just inappropriate, you will be BANNED.
If you argue with a highlighted user/known player without good reason, you will be BANNED. Why? It's a privilege to have these guys posting advice here. They don't gain anything from giving you advice, and treating them with anything less than the respect they deserve only chases them away. So ask yourself this: do you really want pros posting in your threads? If so, be respectful. If not, you probably don't belong here. But fear not, there are plenty of other strategy forums you could be posting in.
Everything else is up to my discretion.
Questions? (read this because I'm not going to respond to questions) The reason we have such strict moderation is we want people in this community to be self-sufficient, not dependent on others, and we want to keep discussion in the Strategy Forum at the highest level. That means quality guides, meaningful discussion about new builds and strategies, and asking for help only as a a last resort (but giving beneficial responses to any help threads). Being able to help yourself is key to becoming a better player, and it also, it reduces clutter in the Strategy Forum. Think about what your ideal Strategy Forum would look like. What would you rather see on the sidebar:
[H] 6 pool [Q] How do I stop 4gate? [D] Void ray balance changes help me idk what i'm doing wrong I don't feel like tagging my help threads but help anyways (Replay included)
[G] ZvP 3 Gate Expand [D] Stargate versus Robo play in PvZ [G] How to Improve [G] Basic Openings/Timings Chrono Boost Math
If you don't feel your thread deserves to be on the sidebar, don't post it. If I don't feel your thread deserves to be on the sidebar, it won't be there.
NOTE: All bans will be temporary Strategy Forum bans. Feel free to PM me about bans/thread closures.
I'd like to say- I'm very happy with the results of the purge so far. Looking at the little side bar, it was a solid line of XvX - -Strat- *discuss* - heartening to see.
Not long after SC2 came out, I would always hear people hyping up the TL forums as if simply posting here made a person intelligent, implying that the quality of both the members of the site and the forum discussions were of the highest quality; so I eventually decided to check this palce out. Aside from the outstanding contributions provided by the pros/higher ups though, I can honestly say that this forum didn't impress me any more than the blizzard forums.
It was as if, with the advent of SC2, those new to the game learned of TL's reputation and flocked here in a pitiful attempt to guise their comparatively paltry thoughts and opinions on the state of the game as something worthy of being heard simply because they had a TL account. Based on the quality of the better contributions to the website, however, as well as the reputation it has earned, I was sure that the standards of the forums had been much greater at one point than they seemed to be when I first came across it.
I'm glad to hear there are going to be crackdowns for the purposes of quality control, and look forward to seeing these forums in a state which its reputation suggests it would be.
Can we stop people asking "Here is 1 replay of a game I played that I lost, what did I do wrong?"? Those really don't seem to warrant a thread. Perhaps a replay help thread or something to collate them? I dunno, they just clog up my mind every time I go to the strategy forum.
Moderators, can you please reinforce this rule more? It looks like all people are doing are making [D], [H] in their threads, and doing the exact same thing as they did before. Can a harsher punishment please be implemented? I see the strategy section reverting to how it was a few months ago..... the dark ages...
These [H]How do I deal with xyz? should be banned from existing anyways imo.Its just flooding the forum right now and most of these threads already have a answer to them,you just need to search for it.
I'm just scared to post in the Strategy thread now. I guess I'll only come to read here instead... And anyway, I'm probably not even good enough for anyone to care about any light I shed on a specific in-game scenario/situation from an 'advice-giving' perspective. But, I understand the reasons for this and appreciate the ultimate goal you guys are trying to achieve, but quite an intimidating method nonetheless; perhaps there was no other choice though.
You say people can pull workers to save them so they don't die to a nuke. You say its a waste because you lose mining time, can you provide analysis and charts to back your claim. I need to know how much minerals am I loosing waiting for nuke to go off and how much he is loosing for not killing anything.
I posted these specifics in the thread 6 posts before the mod closed it. If the mod followed the guidelines and actually read the thread they would know that. Instead they just took one look at the OP and decided to shut down the entire discussion. Just because the OP is bad does not mean the entire thread is bad. Lord knows there's plenty of *good* OPs that need to be shut down because discussion turns sour.
Its really frustrating to put in a lot of time and effort into a reply and then see the thread shut down a few minutes later just because the OP didn't dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s. It discourages discussion. I'm sure as heck not going to make a new thread on the same topic. Not only would it be redundant, I also have no clue if the mods would close it just like that one.
Besides, look at some of the posts that actual pros have made on this forum:
These are *good* posts. I *want* to see posts like these here in the strategy forum.
And yet, they didn't watch replays, they didn't back up their stuff with evidence, and they didn't jump through a gazillion hoops to make certain their posts were up to ridiculous guidelines. Do you *want* to alienate posts like these? Is there going to be a double standard where some posters (decided arbitrarily by mods) get leeway but others do not?
I think that the recent draconian measures are stupid. You can be a pro player and write a stupid post just as easily as you could be a noob player and write a smart post.
And before you give the me "STFU or GTFO" line, I know TL isn't a democracy, but that doesn't mean that authority gets to be immune to criticism.
You say people can pull workers to save them so they don't die to a nuke. You say its a waste because you lose mining time, can you provide analysis and charts to back your claim. I need to know how much minerals am I loosing waiting for nuke to go off and how much he is loosing for not killing anything.
I posted these specifics in the thread 6 posts before the mod closed it. If the mod followed the guidelines and actually read the thread they would know that. Instead they just took one look at the OP and decided to shut down the entire discussion. Just because the OP is bad does not mean the entire thread is bad. Lord knows there's plenty of *good* OPs that need to be shut down because discussion turns sour.
Its really frustrating to put in a lot of time and effort into a reply and then see the thread shut down a few minutes later just because the OP didn't dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s. It discourages discussion. I'm sure as heck not going to make a new thread on the same topic. Not only would it be redundant, I also have no clue if the mods would close it just like that one.
Besides, look at some of the posts that actual pros have made on this forum:
These are *good* posts. I *want* to see posts like these here in the strategy forum.
And yet, they didn't watch replays, they didn't back up their stuff with evidence, and they didn't jump through a gazillion hoops to make certain their posts were up to ridiculous guidelines. Do you *want* to alienate posts like these? Is there going to be a double standard where some posters (decided arbitrarily by mods) get leeway but others do not?
I think that the recent draconian measures are stupid. You can be a pro player and write a stupid post just as easily as you could be a noob player and write a smart post.
And before you give the me "STFU or GTFO" line, I know TL isn't a democracy, but that doesn't mean that authority gets to be immune to criticism.
Don't blame the mod. He's just doing his job. The thread was really borderline and I personally didn't close it because I felt that a nuke discussion was good (I strongly believe nukes will be seeing more use lategame not because of the economic damage they can do, but how taxing they are on the opponent just to prevent some major damage). You seem really upset because you spent a long time writing a response in a thread that got closed. Why not remake the discussion, but with a better OP? Or just not post in low quality threads that you think might get closed in the future (also - do you really think just because you posted in that thread, that means the entire thread as a whole wasn't bad)? Or both? There are definitely more elegant solutions than just blaming the mods.
I'm sure as heck not going to make a new thread on the same topic. Not only would it be redundant, I also have no clue if the mods would close it just like that one.
If you really think your post is worth reading, then you would get off your high horse to make it visible. The reasons you give are completely trivial - there's no ongoing nuke discussion, so no, it's not redundant, and if you put effort into your OP and make a convincing argument, it's not going to be closed. I'm sure you can pick out what was wrong with the OP - "hey guys, I'm in X league and I think nukes would be good lategame because they can do damage" without providing replays or analysis or referencing higher level games. It's common sense. You can't expect to talk about some "new innovative strategy/way to play" and be taken seriously without solid evidence. Even if it does get closed, just PM a mod about it and they'll get back to you.
You say people can pull workers to save them so they don't die to a nuke. You say its a waste because you lose mining time, can you provide analysis and charts to back your claim. I need to know how much minerals am I loosing waiting for nuke to go off and how much he is loosing for not killing anything.
I posted these specifics in the thread 6 posts before the mod closed it. If the mod followed the guidelines and actually read the thread they would know that. Instead they just took one look at the OP and decided to shut down the entire discussion. Just because the OP is bad does not mean the entire thread is bad. Lord knows there's plenty of *good* OPs that need to be shut down because discussion turns sour.
Its really frustrating to put in a lot of time and effort into a reply and then see the thread shut down a few minutes later just because the OP didn't dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s. It discourages discussion. I'm sure as heck not going to make a new thread on the same topic. Not only would it be redundant, I also have no clue if the mods would close it just like that one.
Besides, look at some of the posts that actual pros have made on this forum:
These are *good* posts. I *want* to see posts like these here in the strategy forum.
And yet, they didn't watch replays, they didn't back up their stuff with evidence, and they didn't jump through a gazillion hoops to make certain their posts were up to ridiculous guidelines. Do you *want* to alienate posts like these? Is there going to be a double standard where some posters (decided arbitrarily by mods) get leeway but others do not?
I think that the recent draconian measures are stupid. You can be a pro player and write a stupid post just as easily as you could be a noob player and write a smart post.
And before you give the me "STFU or GTFO" line, I know TL isn't a democracy, but that doesn't mean that authority gets to be immune to criticism.
Well if you are not a dumbass, the guidelines are pretty easy to follow. It is not like you have to pray to six gods, sacrifice a virgin, and sever your left arm in offering to chill. You just have to be intelligent and put a tad bit more effort in than just "ROFL This be how i pwn newbz0rs!!1 ipwnnewbzors.jpg."
The reason why you need evidence is for no other reason than to show people that you do in fact know what you are talking about. The reason why notable players don't need to do this is because we all know that they know what they're talking about because of the fact that they are notable. Are you really insinuating that ThorZain and Jinro don't watch replays? They've both put more time into watching reps and playing in the past few months than you will likely play in your lifetime. Also, you're mistaken if you think that it's just as easy for a noob player to write a smart post as it is for a pro to write a dumb post. I can go write a dumb post right now, and even get myself banned if I want to. Apparently you can't write a smart post even while putting in so much supposed effort.
I've personally been on TL since 2009, which granted is a relatively short period of time, but I've never once seen a thread closed or a person banned that clearly should not have been. At worst, it's borderline, and I'd rather mods close borderline threads that maybe shouldn't have been closed than let the thread live when it will most likely never garner worthwhile discussion.
p.s. O.O Draconian, someone has been studying for the SATs
You say people can pull workers to save them so they don't die to a nuke. You say its a waste because you lose mining time, can you provide analysis and charts to back your claim. I need to know how much minerals am I loosing waiting for nuke to go off and how much he is loosing for not killing anything.
I posted these specifics in the thread 6 posts before the mod closed it. If the mod followed the guidelines and actually read the thread they would know that. Instead they just took one look at the OP and decided to shut down the entire discussion. Just because the OP is bad does not mean the entire thread is bad. Lord knows there's plenty of *good* OPs that need to be shut down because discussion turns sour.
Its really frustrating to put in a lot of time and effort into a reply and then see the thread shut down a few minutes later just because the OP didn't dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s. It discourages discussion. I'm sure as heck not going to make a new thread on the same topic. Not only would it be redundant, I also have no clue if the mods would close it just like that one.
Besides, look at some of the posts that actual pros have made on this forum:
These are *good* posts. I *want* to see posts like these here in the strategy forum.
And yet, they didn't watch replays, they didn't back up their stuff with evidence, and they didn't jump through a gazillion hoops to make certain their posts were up to ridiculous guidelines. Do you *want* to alienate posts like these? Is there going to be a double standard where some posters (decided arbitrarily by mods) get leeway but others do not?
I think that the recent draconian measures are stupid. You can be a pro player and write a stupid post just as easily as you could be a noob player and write a smart post.
And before you give the me "STFU or GTFO" line, I know TL isn't a democracy, but that doesn't mean that authority gets to be immune to criticism.
Well if you are not a dumbass, the guidelines are pretty easy to follow. It is not like you have to pray to six gods, sacrifice a virgin, and sever your left arm in offering to chill. You just have to be intelligent and put a tad bit more effort in than just "ROFL This be how i pwn newbz0rs!!1 ipwnnewbzors.jpg."
The reason why you need evidence is for no other reason than to show people that you do in fact know what you are talking about. The reason why notable players don't need to do this is because we all know that they know what they're talking about because of the fact that they are notable. Are you really insinuating that ThorZain and Jinro don't watch replays? They've both put more time into watching reps and playing in the past few months than you will likely play in your lifetime. Also, you're mistaken if you think that it's just as easy for a noob player to write a smart post as it is for a pro to write a dumb post. I can go write a dumb post right now, and even get myself banned if I want to. Apparently you can't write a smart post even while putting in so much supposed effort.
I've personally been on TL since 2009, which granted is a relatively short period of time, but I've never once seen a thread closed or a person banned that clearly should not have been. At worst, it's borderline, and I'd rather mods close borderline threads that maybe shouldn't have been closed than let the thread live when it will most likely never garner worthwhile discussion.
p.s. O.O Draconian, someone has been studying for the SATs
He was 'insinuating' that ThorZain / Jinro did not watch the replay in the OP of the thread they posted in, which would lead to a ban for any normal user, use your brain....
You say people can pull workers to save them so they don't die to a nuke. You say its a waste because you lose mining time, can you provide analysis and charts to back your claim. I need to know how much minerals am I loosing waiting for nuke to go off and how much he is loosing for not killing anything.
I posted these specifics in the thread 6 posts before the mod closed it. If the mod followed the guidelines and actually read the thread they would know that. Instead they just took one look at the OP and decided to shut down the entire discussion. Just because the OP is bad does not mean the entire thread is bad. Lord knows there's plenty of *good* OPs that need to be shut down because discussion turns sour.
Its really frustrating to put in a lot of time and effort into a reply and then see the thread shut down a few minutes later just because the OP didn't dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s. It discourages discussion. I'm sure as heck not going to make a new thread on the same topic. Not only would it be redundant, I also have no clue if the mods would close it just like that one.
Besides, look at some of the posts that actual pros have made on this forum:
These are *good* posts. I *want* to see posts like these here in the strategy forum.
And yet, they didn't watch replays, they didn't back up their stuff with evidence, and they didn't jump through a gazillion hoops to make certain their posts were up to ridiculous guidelines. Do you *want* to alienate posts like these? Is there going to be a double standard where some posters (decided arbitrarily by mods) get leeway but others do not?
I think that the recent draconian measures are stupid. You can be a pro player and write a stupid post just as easily as you could be a noob player and write a smart post.
And before you give the me "STFU or GTFO" line, I know TL isn't a democracy, but that doesn't mean that authority gets to be immune to criticism.
Well if you are not a dumbass, the guidelines are pretty easy to follow. It is not like you have to pray to six gods, sacrifice a virgin, and sever your left arm in offering to chill. You just have to be intelligent and put a tad bit more effort in than just "ROFL This be how i pwn newbz0rs!!1 ipwnnewbzors.jpg."
The reason why you need evidence is for no other reason than to show people that you do in fact know what you are talking about. The reason why notable players don't need to do this is because we all know that they know what they're talking about because of the fact that they are notable. Are you really insinuating that ThorZain and Jinro don't watch replays? They've both put more time into watching reps and playing in the past few months than you will likely play in your lifetime. Also, you're mistaken if you think that it's just as easy for a noob player to write a smart post as it is for a pro to write a dumb post. I can go write a dumb post right now, and even get myself banned if I want to. Apparently you can't write a smart post even while putting in so much supposed effort.
I've personally been on TL since 2009, which granted is a relatively short period of time, but I've never once seen a thread closed or a person banned that clearly should not have been. At worst, it's borderline, and I'd rather mods close borderline threads that maybe shouldn't have been closed than let the thread live when it will most likely never garner worthwhile discussion.
p.s. O.O Draconian, someone has been studying for the SATs
He was 'insinuating' that ThorZain / Jinro did not watch the replay in the OP of the thread they posted in, which would lead to a ban for any normal user, use your brain....
Jinro/Thorzain/etc have a little more weight behind them...when you describe something and they tell you.........don't do that when X happens...ever, without watching the replay then you listen because they are clearly at the top of their game. When random "noobslayer94" posts the same thing, without watching the replay, there is no weight behind it, so they need to be much more careful in how they respond, and we want to know they did their research before spouting random nonsense.
"If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED." If you know exactly what your opponent will be doing, then how can you lose? Unless it's a 4 gate strategy.
Great initiative, I may start reading the strategy forums now, it was the only section on TL I avoided. Also I couldn't help to think about this when reading the rules:
On July 01 2011 01:32 k3m4 wrote: It would be helpful for everyone who reads this thread if it wouldn't be written in such an aggressive and excessive language.
It's written that way because the standards for strategy threads are very high. If you can't comply with every single bullet point nobody is going to take away anything useful from your contribution. I could sit here and say, yeah everything everyone says can be useful in some way. But that's not the case.
I agree with this response to what is happening in the strat forum, I sometimes get discouraged to even look at it because tons of the things posted do not belong, and I am sure that even a large number of mods won't be sufficient to clean it up.
On June 28 2011 10:18 TheAwesomeTemplar wrote: "If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED." If you know exactly what your opponent will be doing, then how can you lose? Unless it's a 4 gate strategy.
Because he isn't the best player around. A Pro posting a thread of that type could probably win even if the opponent knows it is coming. So it sets a pretty good standard, if you are good enough to win with it even if a decent opponent knows it is coming, then the thread is worthwhile even without being a good example of a thread.
If somebody wants to abuse it they get banned for abusing a mod, so it works out either way.
On June 28 2011 10:18 TheAwesomeTemplar wrote: "If your thread is about a new strategy and you do not have a damn good analysis (with replays) (i.e. I think your thread is too theorycrafty), you can play against me in a BO3 with your strategy. If you lose, you will be BANNED." If you know exactly what your opponent will be doing, then how can you lose? Unless it's a 4 gate strategy.
Because if a good strategy, it doesn't rely on not being scouted.
e.g. I tell my opponent, I'm sentry expanding, he doesn't go "FUCKING YES, I'll use secret build X which owns sentry expand (inb4 roachling allin). It's a build which is sensible enough to work in nearly any game.
Say my build is proxy DT/void ray/mothership/worker allin, if my opponent scouts it/does anything standard/isn't retarded, it's probably going to lose.
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: [*]If you give incorrect advice, you will be SHOT DOWN. If you aren't sure whether or not you should be giving advice, then don't. That doesn't mean don't give advice if you're not masters. But anyone (masters included) giving advice better be pretty damn sure of their advice before they give it. [*]If you give unhelpful advice, you will be BANNED. bans/thread closures.
Forget everything else, if you can successfully mod the above 2 rules, every other problem solves itself.
Can we get a count of how many times this thread has been linked on these forums? edit: searching viewmessage.php?topic_id=210370 in content yielded only 334, I would have thought it was more than that.
On July 28 2011 10:28 bubblegumbo wrote: This should make this subforum readable now, finally you guys are doing it right.
Don't speak too soon...
After glancing at the SC2 section after a long time away, I find an OP which doesn't actually discuss strategy, but rather decides to whine that a match up is complicated. It's filled to the brim with plenty of 1-2 liners as well. We don't need a purge, we need all out nuclear war.
One thing I really hate is when someone starts a topic on a particular build order that they've been working on and people just post something like, "No do this build order instead it's better" and all their post is is the build order. I think it's okay to tell an OP that he has an unrefined build order and direct him to a better execution of the same thing, but I hate when people jus say their build order is better. They should at least have to explain why they think it's better and the advantages. It really throws off the flow of a topic when you have these people just throwing in random build orders that many times don't even serve the same purpose as the original (promoting a cheese version of a build meant to pressure into expand).
If not watching a replay to give advice is considered too rude to post, then the same should apply to providing counter build orders without properly comparing to the original one.
Welp, I'm definitely going to be way too worried about getting banned to ever make a thread in the strategy forum, that's for sure. I know it's for professionalism, but now I'm extremely reserved about ever voicing my thoughts here in it's own thread
On August 07 2011 02:13 Naeroon wrote: Welp, I'm definitely going to be way too worried about getting banned to ever make a thread in the strategy forum, that's for sure. I know it's for professionalism, but now I'm extremely reserved about ever voicing my thoughts here in it's own thread
Don't worry. Saracen is not a ban-monster. There is usually a very obvious reason to a ban. If you make a thread and it's not good enough it will be closed. If you put thought into it you won't be banned. Also, mods will give you a reason everytime they close a thread so that you know your mistakes and can improve. Hope that put you at ease.
On August 07 2011 02:20 GinDo wrote: When Saracen first posted this I got all excited. But really the Strat Forums for SC2 are still full of Crappy OPs and ignorant posts.
How in the world do some people have 200 posts and still posting "i'm at work can't watch/post replay".
I know what you mean, it's disgusting that when you create a new thread it asks you to read the guidelines, and people just think "NBD" and make threads and/or respond to threads while blatantly violating the guidelines...
edit: what the person below me said, I'd love to swing some banhammers haha
I know it's a lot to ask, but it is my birthday this year, and I was wondering... would it be ok to put the phrase "Any good X..." in room 101 along with "I'm at work..." ?
On August 07 2011 02:20 GinDo wrote: When Saracen first posted this I got all excited. But really the Strat Forums for SC2 are still full of Crappy OPs and ignorant posts.
How in the world do some people have 200 posts and still posting "i'm at work can't watch/post replay".
I know what you mean, it's disgusting that when you create a new thread it asks you to read the guidelines, and people just think "NBD" and make threads and/or respond to threads while blatantly violating the guidelines...
edit: what the person below me said, I'd love to swing some banhammers haha
What if I said I'd posted in about 20 strategy threads and never watched a replay?
On August 30 2011 02:04 Chill wrote: I think the purge is over so I'm going to unsticky this
This makes me sad. Like 5 crap Threads have appeared today in like my first 30 minutes of browsing.
And I'm so sick of "Dealing With" threads. Personally I think that their should be a quiz before: 1) Your allowed to post for the first time 2)Your allowed to make a thread for the first time 3) Before you can make a Thread SC2 Strategy Forums. This one should be completed every single time. Not only will it be tedious, but make people think twice before making crappy threads. Only people who have something worthwhile to contribute will take the time to do a 20 question quiz about what is and what is not appropriate for the Strategy Forum. 4) Before you can post in the Strategy Forum for the first time
Times like this make me wish I were a mod, but then again I don't want to lose my soul to the Moderator Devil.
EPT
You don't know how much i <3 you right now. I seriously sick with all the emotional crap threads about motivation to play and stuff. Oh yeah and the infamous "How to Deal with" threads. Seriously guys grow some balls
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/fo1hs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/hFkCs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ExC1I.jpg)
