|
United States8477 Posts
SC2 Strategy Forum Guideline/Moderation Changes
As you may have noticed we have recently updated the Strategy Forum Guidelines. The first purpose of this is to update the rules so that they can conform to the modern strategy forum. The second is to more clearly lay out and define the rules so you can't say they're unclear or not posted anywhere. Here are the most important changes in policy:
1. The race specific help me threads have shown to be very useful in consolidating questions and eliminating forum clutter. As such, we have decided to feature them and link them in the main guidelines.
2. We have decided to retire the old [Q] threads as no one was really using them anyways. The ones that were made seemed like just lazy [H] threads that could have been asked in the race specific help me threads. We also feel that a combination of [H] threads, [D] threads, and the race specific help me threads can cover the role that the old [Q] threads once did.
3.There are a few things that were a part of the old policy which we have decided to further highlight:
- Rule Number 1: Everything you say must be backed with evidence.
Everything you say must be backed by sound reasoning, a replay, or a vod, preferably more than one of those. You can no longer simply just say "Go stalkers and sentries vs that", even if it's right. Similarly, a response indicating a poor understanding of the topic without evidence will be warned. In addition, simple stories of what you do will not be acceptable without analysis. Long gone will be the days of "I go hellion expand into banshees and it works good for me"
- You must watch replays when responding to posts with replays.
4. With these new guidelines, there will be much more strict moderation. Anything that comes to close to breaking the guidelines will be warned and multiple offenses will be banned. Hopefully, these changes will help in stemming the tide of bad threads and bad posts.
Please keep comments on the changes in this thread.
Post here in the website feedback forums if you feel like you have been unjustly warned. Try not to have moderation discussion in the actual strategy forum topics.
|
Awesome! 
Although, I thought you already retired [Q] threads?
|
Good to get a heads up. I've noticed a lot of new posters who come here and post bullshit without thinking. Good to see moderation teams stepping up
|
Italy12247 Posts
Yessir
Speaking of replays, will there be a level of "acceptability" for replays? I suppose it depends on the league of the poster asking questions, but is (for example) my own diamond/low master level considered "enough"?
|
United States8477 Posts
On May 19 2012 07:23 Fencer710 wrote:Awesome! Although, I thought you already retired [Q] threads?
Not officially. People just stopped using them.
On May 19 2012 07:32 Teoita wrote:Yessir Speaking of replays, will there be a level of "acceptability" for replays? I suppose it depends on the league of the poster asking questions, but is (for example) my own diamond/low master level considered "enough"?
It's really hard for mods to watch and judge each replay, so it can't technically be moderated, but generally, yes there are circumstances where low level replays won't cut it.
|
Yeah I never really liked the [Q] threads. Good move imo.
|
Blazinghand
United States25561 Posts
This looks really great. I'm especially glad to see the emphasis on replay watching and stricter moderation, which I think will help a great deal in the quality of [H] threads.
|
does it count as evidence if you refer to a specific game, or do you have to find the URL to it?
|
United States8477 Posts
On May 19 2012 11:16 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
does it count as evidence if you refer to a specific game, or do you have to find the URL to it?
Yea, that's fine. Just give the person enough information to find the game. Obviously the more specific you are, the better.
|
Thanks!
really liking this new rule, btw! and hope that the rule that you have to watch replays continues to get enforced
|
In the new thread you give an example link to "[G] PvZ Dealing with mutas" as an example of a good [G] thread but it's actually a [D] thread.
The thread is actually of [G] quality of course but this might confuse new users, I think a mod should retag it.
|
OMG i am not sure if i like this "more of the same" decision. TL will get more boring every day .. over regulation incoming
|
So glad about this, it frustrates me the amount crap i read (and occasionally catch myself writing) that had no evidence at all presented beside it.
|
On May 19 2012 21:44 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
OMG i am not sure if i like this "more of the same" decision. TL will get more boring every day .. over regulation incoming
If by boring you mean useful.
|
On May 19 2012 22:09 Kasu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 21:44 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
OMG i am not sure if i like this "more of the same" decision. TL will get more boring every day .. over regulation incoming If by boring you mean useful.
If the bars are raised too high, there will be no posts ...
|
On May 19 2012 22:24 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 22:09 Kasu wrote:On May 19 2012 21:44 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
OMG i am not sure if i like this "more of the same" decision. TL will get more boring every day .. over regulation incoming If by boring you mean useful. If the bars are raised too high, there will be no useless posts ...
Fixed Your welcome.
Great move guys! was really waiting for the strategy forum to get more demanding, especially after the threads by lynna and TheMista got poluted by a fuck tone of **********...
|
On May 19 2012 22:24 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 22:09 Kasu wrote:On May 19 2012 21:44 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
OMG i am not sure if i like this "more of the same" decision. TL will get more boring every day .. over regulation incoming If by boring you mean useful. If the bars are raised too high, there will be no posts ...
If the number of posts in the strategy forum were reduced to about 5% of what they are now, it would be a much better resource in my opinion.
|
Well I'll probably get my first ban if I make it a habit of posting too much in the strategy forums now. My strategy is learned from rampant consumption of knowledge from sites like Team Liquid, not from personal experience. Thus, I know what to do in most any circumstance, but usually not why.
|
On May 19 2012 22:44 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 22:24 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On May 19 2012 22:09 Kasu wrote:On May 19 2012 21:44 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
OMG i am not sure if i like this "more of the same" decision. TL will get more boring every day .. over regulation incoming If by boring you mean useful. If the bars are raised too high, there will be no posts ... If the number of posts in the strategy forum were reduced to about 5% of what they are now, it would be a much better resource in my opinion.
Yeah. Pretty much all the replies these days are just repeating what other replies already said. Cutting the posting down to 5% would keep it short and concise.
|
I am wondering about the specific "help me threads". The standards, there, are a bit lower than the standard of, let's say, the OP of a new thread. I think it's a good thing: asking help in a three line message can't be acceptable as a new thread, but seems to be fair enough in the "help me threads". Maybe you could acknowledge that in the forum guidelines?
Also, I find this rule of "backing everything you say with evidence" a bit excessive and inapplicable: If it is necessary for an OP, can we expect anyone posting a reply giving some link to back up his claim? have a look at any thread, you will see that a precise application of the guidelines seems quite impossible (in my opinion at least!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
