EPTPosting from work could mean that he/she is on his lunchbreak. Is that really such a big problem?
I'm at work ... - Page 6
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
Posting from work could mean that he/she is on his lunchbreak. Is that really such a big problem? | ||
|
shannn
Netherlands2891 Posts
I've so far just neglected it as I was unsure about this and there was no real confirmation or rule about this that would answer me this when I checked. On June 17 2011 19:25 Psychobabas wrote: I think that the sense of community and wanting to contribute should be above "posting a proper post". Posting from work could mean that he/she is on his lunchbreak. Is that really such a big problem? Think of it this way. They're giving an answer to a problem they haven't seen yet which is provided by replay. Thus their answer won't be contributing at all as it would only be mere guessing to the OP. When you're at work you shouldn't be watching replays at all. If you're on a lunchbreak and can post on TL then you should be able to watch a replay as well since it's your lunchbreak. If you can't watch replays then wait untill you're back home from work so you can watch the replays and then start contributing the people asking for help. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
But sorry, if I do sweet F.A. at work and browse TL.net or watch GSL it shouldnt be anybody else's business apart from my own and my boss. | ||
|
Dariusz
Poland657 Posts
On June 17 2011 19:25 Psychobabas wrote: I think that the sense of community and wanting to contribute should be above "posting a proper post". Posting from work could mean that he/she is on his lunchbreak. Is that really such a big problem? You can post from a toilet, noone cares, what people care about is that you don't use it as an excuse to not post/watch replay and answer properly. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On June 17 2011 19:25 Psychobabas wrote: I think that the sense of community and wanting to contribute should be above "posting a proper post". Posting from work could mean that he/she is on his lunchbreak. Is that really such a big problem? On June 17 2011 19:19 Deadlyfish wrote: I think this is way too harsh, and serves no purpose whatsoever. If the post is bad, then ban/warn it, but i've seen plenty of good "i'm and work so.." posts. Please refer to Umpteens post which explains the reasoning behind this very well. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=9798598 | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
Although, even by TL's standards, that is pretty harsh.  | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On June 17 2011 19:19 Deadlyfish wrote: I think this is way too harsh, and serves no purpose whatsoever. If the post is bad, then ban/warn it, but i've seen plenty of good "i'm and work so.." posts. Like if the OP has trouble in a matchup, he describes what he does and what he has trouble with, and he maybe links a few replays. Is it not alright to suggest a build to him, or to discuss various tacticts without watching the replay first? Ok, let's say you do that, and meanwhile someone else actually watches the replay and discusses tactics and builds based on that more complete information. When this hypothetical other person posts their conclusions, what do you think the chances are you'll have pointed out something helpful they've missed? Like if someones has trouble in TvP and he writes about his strategy and his problems, and then he links a replay. But often the replay is totally useless because it shows one single game where he might've lost because of micro, or because he forgot stim, or whatever. But if he believes that replay is representative of him losing because of strategy, that's a hugely useful piece of information: it tells us he's failing to analyse his replays correctly, so we can give him a fishing rod instead of a fish, as it were, and help him help himself. What you're saying is that instead of establishing the above fact, we should assume he's right about 'strategy' being the issue, and waffle on about some other strategies he might like to execute poorly instead. That's not even giving him a fish. It's like giving him a picture of a fish. A lot of the time the replay seems totally useless and it's a waste of time to watch it. How is it not ok to just go "i cant watch the replay but check out this strat, or check out this video..." Because it doesn't help anyone. See those threads with [G] in the title? They're the ones people should be browsing for general good advice. General good advice is the best advice, "Macro better." "Increase your APM." "Scout." "Use Hotkeys." I dare you to disagree with one of those statements. Now, stick "I can't watch the replay right now, but you need to..." in front of each of them and see if you think they're appropriate responses to a [H] thread. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On June 17 2011 20:07 Umpteen wrote: Ok, let's say you do that, and meanwhile someone else actually watches the replay and discusses tactics and builds based on that more complete information. When this hypothetical other person posts their conclusions, what do you think the chances are you'll have pointed out something helpful they've missed? Well the guy watching the replay will probably be able to give better advice, most of the time. That doesnt mean that you have to watch the replay though. I dont get how you can expect semi pros/master level people to watch a bunch of silver level replays to be able to give the player some advice. I dont need to watch the replay to know his problem. You cannot "dig deep" into a low level replay because the problem lies with the very basics. And giving a low level player detailed advice about strategy and talking about what he did wrong in that random game that he linked is just as useless as saying "macro better". On June 17 2011 20:07 Umpteen wrote: But if he believes that replay is representative of him losing because of strategy, that's a hugely useful piece of information: it tells us he's failing to analyse his replays correctly, so we can give him a fishing rod instead of a fish, as it were, and help him help himself. What you're saying is that instead of establishing the above fact, we should assume he's right about 'strategy' being the issue, and waffle on about some other strategies he might like to execute poorly instead. That's not even giving him a fish. It's like giving him a picture of a fish. Because it doesn't help anyone. See those threads with [G] in the title? They're the ones people should be browsing for general good advice. "Macro better." "Increase your APM." "Scout." "Use Hotkeys." I dare you to disagree with one of those statements. Now, stick "I can't watch the replay right now, but you need to..." in front of each of them and see if you think they're appropriate responses to a [H] thread. They might not be totally appropriate, but it's still good advice. If the OP is below gold i'd say that is EXACTLY the advice he needs. He doesnt need to know that he didnt micro his marines well. That you go 12 rax and not 13 rax. He will get caught up in details such as those and look for mistakes in each game. Just saying "macro better" isnt acceptable of course, but maybe referring them to a guide, daily or something else would be. But honestly you cannot give deep meaningful advice to low level players. And i think that unless the OP specifically requests you to watch the replay (which most dont) then you shouldnt have to watch it. Going "hey guys i cant figure out ZvZ so heres a 12 min game of a ZvZ i played in platinum last night" is about the most useless thing ever. And i dont think that some helpful general ZvZ advice would hurt him, and it certainly wouldnt justify a ban/warning just because the guy didnt take the time to watch your game. Watching a replay should always be something you should try and do, but sometimes you dont need to, or you cant but you still want to give some solid advice. And you cant just dismiss all advice not based on a replay as bad. I dont understand why you cant just judge each post individually and not generalize every "i'm a work" post. I'd love to help out a fellow Terran in TvZ. I can give him some advice, maybe link him a few of my replays and recommend some streams, but if i get banned just for not watching the replays he posted then i probably wont even bother posting. Most people dont want to spend 20mins watching something just to post some advice. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On June 17 2011 18:28 Umpteen wrote: Truth is not necessarily the same as good advice. "Practice working with infestors" - how? In what matchups and under what circumstances? As part of what build? Isn't it likely that when Mr Herp Derp says he's not good at using infestors, he to a large extent means - even if he's not aware of this himself - that he doesn't know when to employ them or how to work them into his play at appropriate times or how to structure his builds around affording them without dying? Your advice to 'practice working with them' helps him not in the slightest. Maybe, in the replay, he did just need to mass mutas better. Maybe he was three mutas and a bit of micro away from a perfect situational response, and you're telling him to switch to infestors. I know that was an off-the-cuff example you tossed out - but that's exactly the point: threads are becoming clogged with generic, offhand 'good' advice. It's ridiculous how many times I've seen someone ask "In this replay I opened A and he responded with B - how could I have handled that better?", and someone replies "Against Zerg I like to open C harrass into D and E with a fast third. I win a lot with that." It's tantamount to "I like pie." Which is why the rules for posting [H] and [L] threads are as strict as they are. The strategy forum is not supposed to be a place for every Mr Bronze and Mrs Silver to post a replay along with "I lost. Why?" and expect to have Thorzain pick it apart on 'Normal' speed, or Ret to dip in and say "Use moar infestorz". There is an astounding amount of self-help material out there in the form of coaching VODs, guides to analysing replays, build orders, techniques for improving - if the forum is working, [L] threads should be sufficiently rare that there will be enough qualified people with time to watch them. And they don't have to be pros to qualify. [H] threads should, for the same reason, be worth watching. They should be showcasing a genuinely problematic situation, the solution to which will be of broad interest. As others have tried to explain, if you go by what someone says, the pertinence of your advice is limited by their ability to analyze what happened rather than yours. Besides, there are plenty of players whose grasp of the game exceeds their current ability to put it into practice. They're the ones in (say) gold-diamond who aren't asking for help, and they are often perfectly capable of identifying problems in a gold-level replay and giving solid advice. Well - and there's no polite way to ask this - honestly how much of a loss do you estimate that to be? One or two blue posts aside, I can't think of one time I've seen a post from someone who didn't watch the replay that was as useful as another in the thread from someone who did. I see your point, and I agree. I think I just have a problem with how well its been in-forced up to this point (That being said, your doing great for the amount of work you have to do Zatic! Keep it up!). And I don't take your last comment as an insult at all. I understand the difficulty and complexity that surrounds the "Strategy" of the game, and I know that my knowledge is limited and comes mostly from others, and not my own experience. So I think you were as polite as you could be to say that . And thats mostly why I can say, I don't really care and I will just spend my time elsewhere. I just feel like we are straddling a weird line between making the Forum better, and driving off the people it was meant to help. Its important enough to me, that I at least wanted to discuss it, and I definitely have a better idea of where Zatic is coming from, because of this thread. I'll still use it to look at the coolest new P build orders (always from Blues). But thats almost all I ever used it for. Maybe someday soon I will run into a BO that I have a hard time figuring out what to do against, save some replays, then take sometime to right out a nice OP about it. But I will probably just search and find my answer, hopefully people will have taken the hint by then, and OP won't be riddle'd with 2-3 line replies followed by a red "THIS USER HAS BEEN WARNED FOR THIS POST!" | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On June 17 2011 20:30 Deadlyfish wrote: I can give him some advice, maybe link him a few of my replays and recommend some streams, but if i get banned just for not watching the replays he posted then i probably wont even bother posting. Most people dont want to spend 20mins watching something just to post some advice. OK if you just don't understand the reasoning for the rules here is a suggestion: Every time you feel you can help even without watching the replay PM the person you want to help with your advice instead of posting it. Deal? | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On June 17 2011 20:41 zatic wrote: OK if you just don't understand the reasoning for the rules here is a suggestion: Every time you feel you can help even without watching the replay PM the person you want to help with your advice instead of posting it. Deal? Haha, sure  | ||
|
DerNebel
Denmark648 Posts
On June 17 2011 20:41 zatic wrote: OK if you just don't understand the reasoning for the rules here is a suggestion: Every time you feel you can help even without watching the replay PM the person you want to help with your advice instead of posting it. Deal? If you don't want to post meaningful and definetly relevant advice, then don't do it. I think this "I can't be bothered" attitude is poison to this subforum. It is a quality issue, if you don't want to post good advice, then don't post advice at all. Lastly, StarCraft 2 is a complex game. You can't just not look at the game and expect to be dead on the money concerning what is wrong. That is like trying to give advice on a chess game based on the openings and a description of the general game flow. You can't. | ||
|
awu25
United States2003 Posts
Like really? It HAD to be posted at that moment? | ||
|
teamamerica
United States958 Posts
On June 17 2011 20:45 DerNebel wrote: If you don't want to post meaningful and definetly relevant advice, then don't do it. I think this "I can't be bothered" attitude is poison to this subforum. It is a quality issue, if you don't want to post good advice, then don't post advice at all. Lastly, StarCraft 2 is a complex game. You can't just not look at the game and expect to be dead on the money concerning what is wrong. That is like trying to give advice on a chess game based on the openings and a description of the general game flow. You can't. I'm really with this guy. I feel that people think because they are posting help, they have a sense of entitlement. But really, if you can't take 5 minutes to at least x8 through a replay (for these really low level games some people complain about having to watch), stfu. Seriously, sometimes I see these posts that take longer to write then freaking watching the replay. There's some disconnect there. If you can't watch the replay, your advice is not wanted, and I think people can't get over this. Want to help so much? Watch the replay. Stop being lazy. It's like those freaking facebook threads that's like change your profile picture to save XYZ, the same laziness. Those people who change their profile pictures also want to help! And they're considerate enough not to clutter up your space with it at least. If your post should be able to stand on it's own, regardless of watching the replay, it probably was covered in some [G]. | ||
|
Khanz
France214 Posts
GREAT OP, if everyone was following this rule the strategy HELP threads could improve quickly. You don't help when you dont watch the replay, the guy asking for help wants references to his replay(s) obviously. I don't even get why there are still people replying to this thread like: "but i dont want to watch bronze level play 20 Minutes". Well there will be people with higher sens of helping who WILL WATCH the replay because they post to help and not to increase post counts. I might ask for help from now :D | ||
|
kyneS
United States44 Posts
On June 17 2011 20:41 zatic wrote: OK if you just don't understand the reasoning for the rules here is a suggestion: Every time you feel you can help even without watching the replay PM the person you want to help with your advice instead of posting it. Deal? That's a pretty pretty good compromise I'd say. Fair enough. Helps poster without cluttering forum. Maybe you should add this bit about PM'ing to the OP/frong page. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On June 17 2011 19:25 Psychobabas wrote: I think that the sense of community and wanting to contribute should be above "posting a proper post". Posting from work could mean that he/she is on his lunchbreak. Is that really such a big problem? Why on earth would you post unless it's a proper response? If it's not, you're simply a waste of space. What's he's talking about is people who just post an answere to a question without even knowing what the question is. Someone saying "I just lost here, there's a replay as well, could anyone tell me what I should do better?" And some douche comes in with "Ye sorry bro I'm at work, so I have no idea what you're talking about as I can't watch the replay, but you probably need to macro better. Peace out dude." It has nothing to do with being at work, it has to do with people using work as an excuse for posting useless crap. And the same goes for topic starters.. I've seen this alot.. People sometimes even posting half a thread saying that they don't have time to finish it, but wanna post it anyway. Email it to yourself, and post in as a whole. Think quality before quantity. Think that you're actually posting in a news paper that thousands of intelligent people from all over the world read. And to you my good sir, you need to start reading the OP. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
Advice is advice, general advice can be great advice. | ||
|
Nightfly
150 Posts
On June 17 2011 21:52 Tobberoth wrote: I don't really understand this whole "dude, if you haven't seen the replay, your advice is crap" mentality mods at TL have. Perhaps read some posts in the thread then, cause people have adequately explained that position. It's your fault for not understanding it. Fine, if the OP is asking for something specific which happened in a game, of course one shouldn't try to give advice without having seen the specific situations. Generally though, someone goes "Hey ya'll, I'm a silver zerg who suck against T. I like to go composition X but I lose to ANYTHING the T does, please give advice" and post 10 replays. I'm not going to watch 10 replays to give advice to a silver zerg when general advice is what he needs. The person who actually watches the replays and goes "in game 2, you lost a ling to a probe. Improve ur micro and u'll win" is the one ruining the thread. The player going "I have a pause at work so I'll give you some good advice. Your composition is great, so don't worry, but how is your macro? Do you have about X units at the Y minute mark? You say you like to do Z, I really don't recommend that because of the following reasons" etc might actually help the player for real. Advice is advice, general advice can be great advice. Oh I see, so your made-up terrible response is worse than your other made-up response? Case closed. If the poster was looking for general advice in the first place, he would go look for general advice. If he posts replays, clearly he's looking for specific advice. Asking how good his macro is is not helpful. And even if it was the case that *some* of the time you miss a good response because of this rule, you remove so much crap that it's worth it. It's like sending 99 criminals to jail at the cost of 1 innocent instead of doing absolutely nothing. | ||
|
Renzin
Australia75 Posts
| ||
| ||
