EPTI'm at work ... - Page 8
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
| ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
On June 17 2011 23:37 Deadlyfish wrote: When you make a thread you are asking people to help you, and people posting in your thread are helping you, for free. So when people get banned for just trying to help out then it's a problem. If it was my thread i'd be happy just to receive any help, even if it was just from some guy on his lunch break who suggested that i try out this new build or whatever. It just seems really strange to me that when i try to honestly help out someone by suggesting a build/strategy/video/guide/whatever i get banned. I want to try and help out, but i might not have the time or access to sit down and watch a replay. If the OP doesnt want help unless you've watched his replays then he should say that. I cant really give you a perfect example, but i'll try. OP says he has trouble with TvP, explains his problem and usual builds and links a few replays. Being excellent at TvP i want to try and help, but i cant really watch a replay right now, so i suggest some new build and maybe link him a guide of that build or something. Then i get banned/warned. I dont think that's fair. I just feel like you're making the strategy forum difficult to post in, and i dont feel it's helping the quality, at all. But i guess some people might want a different kind of forum and that's fine, it's just my opinion  Suggesting some new build is the worst kind of advice you can give, so anything that keeps that out of [H] threads is good. | ||
|
Panger
Canada2 Posts
When you make a thread you are asking people to help you, and people posting in your thread are helping you, for free. So when people get banned for just trying to help out then it's a problem. If it was my thread i'd be happy just to receive any help, even if it was just from some guy on his lunch break who suggested that i try out this new build or whatever. It just seems really strange to me that when i try to honestly help out someone by suggesting a build/strategy/video/guide/whatever i get banned. I want to try and help out, but i might not have the time or access to sit down and watch a replay. If the OP doesnt want help unless you've watched his replays then he should say that. I cant really give you a perfect example, but i'll try. OP says he has trouble with TvP, explains his problem and usual builds and links a few replays. Being excellent at TvP i want to try and help, but i cant really watch a replay right now , so i suggest some new build and maybe link him a guide of that build or something. Then i get banned/warned. I dont think that's fair. I just feel like you're making the strategy forum difficult to post in, and i dont feel it's helping the quality, at all. But i guess some people might want a different kind of forum and that's fine, it's just my opinion I use this post as an example. I think that some people are under the impression that because they believe they are qualified to provide advice, that their advice is automatically useful and welcomed because they are "taking time to post in your thread and helping you for free." These people need to get off their high horse and realize that this whole initiative is about the quality of the feed back. This thread seems to be littered with comments by individuals who think, or know, they can provide better blind advice than someone else who did watch a replay. I don't doubt this claim at all (because it does happen), but I am willing to bet that you will provide EVEN BETTER advice if you do watch the replay because you can corroborate your post with IN GAME facts. If you're going to volunteer your time, do it right. Take a second to think about coaching, teaching and other forms of mentorship. When you coach someone in a sport, it is hard to believe that you would be able to provide sound advice to a player without actually seeing him play. Sure you might be able to identify a general area of weakness by discussing it with them, but unless you identify the specific weakness, explain the implications of that weakness and provide recommendations on how to get better - the advice is incomplete. Edit: Fixed Quotations | ||
|
kNightLite
United States408 Posts
Honestly I'm uncomfortable with the elitist direction this subforum is taking. There is this insinuation from the mods that you shouldn't post unless you're GM and craft your post like it was some academic essay. Maybe that's what the mods want, but it's not what I want. This a public forum. There's naturally going to be some bad posts along with the good. In fact, "bad posts" are not necessarily a bad thing. You can learn just as much from people responding/correcting other people's replies as you can from the OPs. If you want to raise quality standards, why not set up an invite-only subforum? Or implement reddit's league icon system? That way you know the league of each poster, and you could ignore lower league threads and replies if you want to. | ||
|
Copenap
723 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:15 kNightLite wrote: I think this policy is a mistake. You don't need to watch a replay in order to give good advice. Especially if it's a lower level player looking for help. This policy is not going to increase the quality of posts, it's only going to decrease the quantity of posts. Honestly I'm uncomfortable with the elitist direction this subforum is taking. There is this insinuation from the mods that you shouldn't post unless you're GM and craft your post like it was some academic essay. Maybe that's what the mods want, but it's not what I want. This a public forum. There's naturally going to be some bad posts along with the good. In fact, "bad posts" are not necessarily a bad thing. You can learn just as much from people responding/correcting other people's replies as you can from the OPs. If you want to raise quality standards, why not set up an invite-only subforum? Or implement reddit's league icon system? That way you know the league of each poster, and you could ignore lower league threads and replies if you want to. Posts like these really make me wonder... If that's not what you want you may wanne consider finding a new home for your strategy discussions. I just don't get how anyone could even argue against that principle, it should be pretty naturally anyways. How 'bout we just close the strategy forum and everyone trying to open a new thread gets an automatic reply from the tl bot saying "Just focus on macro, that's all you need in league X", because that's what you get from people not watching the reaply the question is based on. | ||
|
Halcyondaze
United States509 Posts
| ||
|
Halcyondaze
United States509 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:15 kNightLite wrote: I think this policy is a mistake. You don't need to watch a replay in order to give good advice. Especially if it's a lower level player looking for help. This policy is not going to increase the quality of posts, it's only going to decrease the quantity of posts. Honestly I'm uncomfortable with the elitist direction this subforum is taking. There is this insinuation from the mods that you shouldn't post unless you're GM and craft your post like it was some academic essay. Maybe that's what the mods want, but it's not what I want. This a public forum. There's naturally going to be some bad posts along with the good. In fact, "bad posts" are not necessarily a bad thing. You can learn just as much from people responding/correcting other people's replies as you can from the OPs. If you want to raise quality standards, why not set up an invite-only subforum? Or implement reddit's league icon system? That way you know the league of each poster, and you could ignore lower league threads and replies if you want to. Elitist is not the right term to use. Informed or quality would be better. It doesn't matter what level you are at, if you watch a replay and take time to access the situation you can give quality advice, which is what people are looking for. We don't want to wander through 15 fucking pages of "IM SO GOOD JUST DO X AND YOU WIN" Bullshit posts. Don't comment unless you take the same amount of initiative that the OP put into the post. And saying that you can learn from "bad posts" obviously shows that you have no idea what a "Bad post" is. | ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
CrAzEdMiKe
Canada151 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:15 kNightLite wrote: I think this policy is a mistake. You don't need to watch a replay in order to give good advice. Especially if it's a lower level player looking for help. This policy is not going to increase the quality of posts, it's only going to decrease the quantity of posts. I disagree. The people who take the time to watch the replays like myself are still going to try and help these folks. If there are fewer "clutter" posts in the thread, my post which I've gone through a lot of effort to make is more likely to be read by the person who made the original post, since there won't be a bazillion posts will little haikus like "Probes and pylons". I'm not suggesting that those tidbits of advice are wrong or incorrect, but they do not DIRECTLY RELATE to that particular player. I have a friend whom I'm teaching how to play... He does not have a problem with building workers and supply. Well, let me rephrase that... he does not have a problem of not making workers and supply. In fact, one of his biggest problems is that he is queueing up a ton of supply depots and workers when that money could be used elsewhere. If he were posting in the forum saying "I'm constantly making workers and supply, but my army just doesn't seem to be big enough, what do I do?" How would you know without looking at the replay what his problem would be? Honestly I'm uncomfortable with the elitist direction this subforum is taking. There is this insinuation from the mods that you shouldn't post unless you're GM and craft your post like it was some academic essay. Maybe that's what the mods want, but it's not what I want. They are not insinuating that at all. What they are asking is that if you want to provide advice to players, you need to achieve a bare minimum amount of work in order to QUALIFY you to give that advice. Diamond level players can certainly help bronze level players improve, but you need to know where the specific weaknesses are before they can start to tackle the next hurdle. It doesn't need to be a crazy long post or something in order to be useful (not the "acedemic essay" as you put it), but it needs to at least be thought out. Besides, it's a little contradictory to believe that one can bestow amazing advice to somebody that will totally turn around their gameplay without putting any effort into the post. In order to actually be helpful to the people requiring help, you need to be willing to put a little work in... And that involves watching the replay. I may not post a ton, but the threads where I have tried to help out a lower level player improve their gameplay I spent wayyyyyyy more time working on the post than I did watching the replay. If you are genuinely determined to try and help someone out, watching the replay is no big deal and takes very little time. If you don't have access to watch the replays at that very moment, make a mental note and come back to the thread when you are able to. This a public forum. There's naturally going to be some bad posts along with the good. In fact, "bad posts" are not necessarily a bad thing. You can learn just as much from people responding/correcting other people's replies as you can from the OPs. If you want to raise quality standards, why not set up an invite-only subforum? Or implement reddit's league icon system? That way you know the league of each poster, and you could ignore lower league threads and replies if you want to. This may be a public forum, but this isn't a democracy. Team Liquid has the right enforce whatever rules they please, and I believe that they are truly committed to increasing the standard of quality within their strategy forums. Quite frankly, the time it takes to go through a single thread to find that one poster who is able to "shoot down" the 10 bad posters takes a lot of time... And really, if you are a newer player you might not actually know if the good poster is even correct and you might believe the incorrect posters. As for implementing the league system, you complain about the elitism that you feel is cropping up, and you would want a system implemented that would only make elitism stronger and more prevelant? I personally think it is a good thing that they are cracking down on this. I can respect where these guys come from, as a long time ago I moderated on a very big Magic: The Gathering forum for the strategy section... And it is extremely difficult to increase the quality of posts without being incredibly strict. To be honest my view was that it is better to scare away X number of posters to allow the Y category (the good posters) to be able to breathe and actually discuss the topic at hand. Some people will get mad, but these are usually the same people who have such "invaluable advice" that either can't be bothered to back up their claims with solid evidence, or people who don't ACTUALLY know what they are talking about. So like I said, I completely approve of trying to crackdown on this. And really, saying "I'm at work, so I wasn't able to watch the replay" is almost saying "I am not willing to give you time out of my day to actually help you". You could make the arguement that "Oh, well he made a post with some pointers and that takes time and thought and he is trying to help!" No. If you truly wanted to help the person asking for help, you would sit down, watch the replay, try and pick apart what went wrong and let them know what you found. That is what you do if you are truly wanting to help someone out, not just post "I'm at work so I didn't watch the replay, but you should really just work on your macro" since they posted that they were a bronze player. Improving macro is such a vague concept that just saying it doesn't do diddly squat. I could tell me friend he just needs to improve his macro and it won't help him. I can tell him things like "Don't queue up 4 supply depots, instead build them as you get closer to needing them". That advice is infinitely more helpful to my friend than just saying "Work on macro, always make workers and supply." Since from his standpoint, he IS always making workers and supply. Anyways, I've gone on long enough. I know that there will be those that disagree with this policy and with my own post, and that's fine. But nobody can challenge the fact that between two equally skilled players, the player that has watched the replay will be able to provide more relevant and sound advice to the player seeking help than the one that has not. So if you cannot deny that statement, then claiming that so much "invaluable advice" is being lost as a result of making watching a replay a requirement just simply does not make sense. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
Honestly I'm uncomfortable with the elitist direction this subforum is taking. Elitist? There are some things that I can say about TL that are elitist, but this is not one of them. Indeed, none of the strategy subforum policies are. What they are is a way to keep people from posting crap. If someone comes to the forum with replays and a willingness to learn, it does the community no good if 80% of the replies are from people who didn't even bother to watch the replay. If you didn't watch the replay, you cannot know what advice to give. It's that simple. Oh, you can guess. You can speculate. You can infer based on the player's ranking and what they say in their post. But until you actually see the game(s), you can't know. Just as you might think that objects fall on earth's surface at an approximate acceleration of 9.8m/s2, you can't know they do unless you perform experiments to determine this. The point of help threads is to get useful help. Not crap from people who are speculating. Actual knowledge. You know, something that's going to be useful for improving play. And if preferring knowledge to speculative crap is elitist, them I'm fine with that. I'm not afraid of words. | ||
|
ScaSully
United States488 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
But if they are at work... so? The only reason one would have to reply to a thread from work is if they consider their input to be so absolutely urgently needed that they must post it right now. Obviously, none of the hundreds of thousands of TL readers who aren't at work presently have the insight to truly see the problem. So obviously, they are the only ones who can help, and they must do so immediately. I don't know, but that sounds like an implied insult to the TL community. That the community can't help him without their input. That the community's input, with the benefit of actually watching the replay, will still be inferior to this guy at work. If you're at work, don't worry; we've got it covered. The person will receive help. When you get off work, you can post if nobody has helped him yet. Otherwise, you're posting to reinforce your own arrogance, not to help someone. | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:15 kNightLite wrote: Honestly I'm uncomfortable with the elitist direction this subforum is taking. There is this insinuation from the mods that you shouldn't post unless you're GM and craft your post like it was some academic essay. Maybe that's what the mods want, but it's not what I want. This is when it comes to posting new strats. Otherwise you get bronze players saying "Hai guyz I make void ray!" as a strat. I'm a mediocre player but I've been able to give good, pertinent advice to lower level players because I watched the replay as a neutral 3rd party. I've never been warned for the advice that I've given and I've yet to have someone contradict it. Thats proof to me that the bar is set at a height thats fair, rather than elitist. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
| ||
|
thebigdonkey
United States354 Posts
On June 18 2011 06:15 kNightLite wrote: I think this policy is a mistake. You don't need to watch a replay in order to give good advice. Especially if it's a lower level player looking for help. This policy is not going to increase the quality of posts, it's only going to decrease the quantity of posts. Honestly I'm uncomfortable with the elitist direction this subforum is taking. There is this insinuation from the mods that you shouldn't post unless you're GM and craft your post like it was some academic essay. Maybe that's what the mods want, but it's not what I want. This a public forum. There's naturally going to be some bad posts along with the good. In fact, "bad posts" are not necessarily a bad thing. You can learn just as much from people responding/correcting other people's replies as you can from the OPs. If you want to raise quality standards, why not set up an invite-only subforum? Or implement reddit's league icon system? That way you know the league of each poster, and you could ignore lower league threads and replies if you want to. If said "low level player" were capable of adequately describing all of their issues in a thread OP, they probably would not be posting asking for help in the first place. The main reason for the replay requirement is that people may present a problem (in the form of an OP) with their own interpretation of what is happening and why it is happening, but the replays may show an entirely different story. There may be compounding leaks in their play that are directly leading to the problem they're describing, only it's not apparent to them. I'd liken it to a patient coming into a doctor's office with some malady. The doctor comes into the examination room and asks the patient what is wrong and the patient describes his list of symptoms along with what he thinks may be wrong with him. Now let's say the doctor at that point just said "LOL that's easy, just make more For another example, I work in IT. When I get a call about a problem reported by an end user, I always take the end user's estimation of the problem with a grain of salt, because no matter how articulate and seemingly well-formed their diagnosis may be, the fact remains that they're not IT professionals and I am, so it's incumbant upon me to independantly confirm whatever the problem may be. Not doing so would be blatantly lazy on my part. The moral of the story is, you can't depend on the person's own estimation of their play to completely fuel your diagnosis. The replay doesn't lie or exaggerrate. It is a completely truthful third party. Ignoring it blows a big logical hole in whatever advice you may wish to give, regardless of whatever good intentions you may have. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On June 18 2011 07:11 NicolBolas wrote: Here's the really stupid thing about the "I'm at work" issue. One of two things is true: they are either at work, or they are not. If they are not at work, then clearly they're lying and deserve a good hard ban. But if they are at work... so? The only reason one would have to reply to a thread from work is if they consider their input to be so absolutely urgently needed that they must post it right now. Obviously, none of the hundreds of thousands of TL readers who aren't at work presently have the insight to truly see the problem. So obviously, they are the only ones who can help, and they must do so immediately. I don't know, but that sounds like an implied insult to the TL community. That the community can't help him without their input. That the community's input, with the benefit of actually watching the replay, will still be inferior to this guy at work. If you're at work, don't worry; we've got it covered. The person will receive help. When you get off work, you can post if nobody has helped him yet. Otherwise, you're posting to reinforce your own arrogance, not to help someone. Holy shit, and I thought I did a decent job of making the point. I salute this post. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On June 18 2011 07:28 thebigdonkey wrote: If said "low level player" were capable of adequately describing all of their issues in a thread OP, they probably would not be posting asking for help in the first place. The main reason for the replay requirement is that people may present a problem (in the form of an OP) with their own interpretation of what is happening and why it is happening, but the replays may show an entirely different story. There may be compounding leaks in their play that are directly leading to the problem they're describing, only it's not apparent to them. I'd liken it to a patient coming into a doctor's office with some malady. The doctor comes into the examination room and asks the patient what is wrong and the patient describes his list of symptoms along with what he thinks may be wrong with him. Now let's say the doctor at that point just said "LOL that's easy, just make more For another example, I work in IT. When I get a call about a problem reported by an end user, I always take the end user's estimation of the problem with a grain of salt, because no matter how articulate and seemingly well-formed their diagnosis may be, the fact remains that they're not IT professionals and I am, so it's incumbant upon me to independantly confirm whatever the problem may be. Not doing so would be blatantly lazy on my part. The moral of the story is, you can't depend on the person's own estimation of their play to completely fuel your diagnosis. The replay doesn't lie or exaggerrate. It is a completely truthful third party. Ignoring it blows a big logical hole in whatever advice you may wish to give, regardless of whatever good intentions you may have. If people don't get it. You could always give better advice having watched the replay, compared to having not. What I think some people are complaining about here (and its why I posted here in the first place). IS that there are exceptions at times, but for the sake of the forum, its better to ignore the exceptions and get everyone on the same page. I feel like you can read what someone has typed and there are certain ques that tell you about how that person is feeling or playing. Sometimes peoples feelings get in the way of what is strategically best, and I feel like most of the generic comments come from people addressing that (kinda like, "don't give up! you can just macro a little better!"). My specific example was someone who didn't like to use Infestors, but liked Mutalisks, and only wanted advice on how to Mutalisk better. My advice was, well if you have a weakness that is using infestors, make it your strength and you will be a much better player. Its an obvious and generic comment that I think is helpful to someone who could be frustrated. But for the sake of the forum, and out of respect to the poster, you cannot argue that it wouldn't have been better for me to at least watch his replay's before replying, to at least see if that could have been helpful, or see what other advice would have been more applicable to that situation. The fact is, if they are willing to post replay's, you need to be willing to watch them before criticizing them. While I agree that you can give helpful advice without the replay, there is no way to argue that it wouldn't be better with. People should respect that OP that much, since they are putting themselves out there, and this is a public place, where we are all looking for good information while sorting through as little crap as possible. Zatic has to read OP after OP and all the replies that come with it, because people are willing to spam out how they feel at any given moment. Thats a lot of work, if people took more time with their posts, it would require much less moderation, and the amount of thought that went into each post (and subsequently every post after that) would increase 10 fold. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On June 17 2011 17:23 Eknoid4 wrote: Zatic didn't even post a replay! Ban time <3 Not just a missing replay, but a missing tag too Who can send a warning to Zatic... from work? | ||
|
ChitinMan
United States49 Posts
On June 18 2011 05:20 tokicheese wrote: If someone does post something like the one above me what would watching the replay actually do? If your in bronze 90% of people need to just macro better. If I'm helping out a Mr. Bronze as you say I start every post with very general advice work on your macro scout etc then work down to more detailed advice like micro tricks. Watching a bronze re 1) Mr Bronze is asking the wrong questions, then. You can't know he's in Bronze/having terrible macro until you watch the replay. If you can somehow know all his specific macro troubles without watching his replay, then why are you posting here? Go win the lottery with your ESP man 2) Its kinda shitty to post general advice in every thread. Broad sweeping generalized advice really doesn't help anyone, specific information like "You missed an SCV at 9:00, you got supply blocked at 4:30, and you didn't react quickly enough to this drop that you could plainly see on your minimap at 13:00" is so much better. Compare that to "MACRO HARDER SCRUB." Now he has things to look at, his game clock, his command center, his supply in the upper right, his mini-map. He knows what to look out for, and he'll improve much more quickly. | ||
| ||
