|
United States8476 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
|
Italy12246 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 States8476 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 States25557 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 States8476 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!).
|
On May 19 2012 22:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
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.
I think it's important to realize, then, that there is certainly someone else around who knows both what and why, so it's not really a problem if you don't answer with just what. I don't know enough to give really detailed answers without spending some time researching them, but if researched answers were the standard in the forum, maybe more people would invest the time so that they could take part in the discussion. That sounds more like a strat forum I'd want to be part of.
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 19 2012 19:14 Geiko wrote:
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.
Or I could just change the tag to [G] ^^.
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.
Yes, the goal is to reduce the number of posts initially by about 50%. However, this will also increase the quality of posts, perhaps encouraging people to post more in the forums.
On May 19 2012 23:10 Macpo wrote:
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?
This is already alluded to in the 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 is impossible.
It's very difficult to precisely enforce the guidelines, but it's possible. Keep in mind that evidence can also be analysis of his thought process backed by sound reasoning; it doesn't have to be an actual link to a game. This is all in the guidelines.
|
United States8476 Posts
Hit quote instead of edit
|
On May 19 2012 23:27 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 23:12 NrGmonk wrote:On May 19 2012 19:14 Geiko wrote:
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. Or I could just change the tag to [G] ^^. On May 19 2012 22:44 AmericanUmlaut wrote: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. Yes, the goal is to reduce the number of posts initially by about 50%. However, this will also increase the quality of posts, perhaps encouraging people to post more in the forums. Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 23:10 Macpo wrote:
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? This is already alluded to in the guidelines. Show nested quote +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 is impossible.
It's very difficult to precisely enforce the guidelines, but it's possible. Keep in mind that evidence can also be analysis of his thought process backed by sound reasoning; it doesn't have to be an actual link to a game. This is all in the guidelines.
Thanks for the answers, my apologies, didn't read carefully enough
|
NrGmonk you are just too good, my favorite MOD <3
|
On May 19 2012 23:44 ohampatu wrote:
NrGmonk you are just too good, my favorite MOD <3
+1. Monk is the biggest reason for TL.net being what it is today. Awesome modding and awesome posts showing awesome levels of knowledge of the game baked into a single package.
|
Don't like the removal of [Q], although that is only my opinion. It was nice to create a thread every now and then without 2 to 4 useless paragraphs of fluff disguised as important content.
I do absolutely love #3 though; got so tired of people going 'I didn't watch the replay, but...'.
Also, if you really want to combat bad posts, create league-restrictions that can be applied to topics. I usually do not want any gold leaguers replying in my topic (or anyone below masters actually). In fact, I never want them to reply to my topics at all, unless it is not in sc2strategy or if I am specifically targeting them (but that would be a survey-esque topic, which is frowned upon as well). To be frank, I actually want to read nothing that anyone below masters ever posts in the sc2strategy forum without exception unless it is a [H] topic (and then I will gladly help them). Sorry if that sounds nazi-ish.
If you could impose such restrictions and find a way to monitor it, that would be absolutely amazing. I, for one, would love to read a topic where for example only grandmasters discuss a certain strategy, even though I would not be able to participate in the discussion because my account is currently in master league.
|
On May 19 2012 07:11 NrGmonk wrote:
[list][*]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.
These changes are brilliant and much-needed. So many people come into a thread with pre-conceived notions, intending to comment or criticize without any experience with the topic. I have no doubt this will help spur more insightful discussion.
PS. Sorry I couldn't provide a replay for this comment!
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 20 2012 18:04 TheExodus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2012 23:44 ohampatu wrote:
NrGmonk you are just too good, my favorite MOD <3 +1. Monk is the biggest reason for TL.net being what it is today. Awesome modding and awesome posts showing awesome levels of knowledge of the game baked into a single package.
Thx to both!
On May 20 2012 23:39 the p00n wrote:
Don't like the removal of [Q], although that is only my opinion. It was nice to create a thread every now and then without 2 to 4 useless paragraphs of fluff disguised as important content.
The reasons for removing Q are stated and pretty much everyone agreed to it in internal discussion. Feel free to disagree though; it's a totally valid opinion.
I do absolutely love #3 though; got so tired of people going 'I didn't watch the replay, but...'.
Also, if you really want to combat bad posts, create league-restrictions that can be applied to topics. I usually do not want any gold leaguers replying in my topic (or anyone below masters actually). In fact, I never want them to reply to my topics at all, unless it is not in sc2strategy or if I am specifically targeting them (but that would be a survey-esque topic, which is frowned upon as well). To be frank, I actually want to read nothing that anyone below masters ever posts in the sc2strategy forum without exception unless it is a [H] topic (and then I will gladly help them). Sorry if that sounds nazi-ish.
If you could impose such restrictions and find a way to monitor it, that would be absolutely amazing. I, for one, would love to read a topic where for example only grandmasters discuss a certain strategy, even though I would not be able to participate in the discussion because my account is currently in master league.
First, I don't know of any way we can prevent gold players from linking their profiles to random masters accounts. Also, the restrictions we have now prevent inexperienced posters from posting. But most importantly, masters players are often the most guilty of thinking they know what they're talking about and posting bs while lower level players can be more timid in their posting.
|
Kind of like seeing the strategy forums a little more "empty" because it gives a higher chance to see something of value. Wish the guidelines on writing guides was more strict, but a bit hard to moderate and also takes away a little from possible creativity that some players may come up with.
|
This is something that looks good in theory, and makes sense when you read it, but is just pretty stupid and classic over-regulation in practice. You guys would be perfect in public office 
On May 21 2012 00:36 TangSC wrote:
So many people come into a thread with pre-conceived notions, intending to comment or criticize without any experience with the topic.
While this is true, in my experience pre conceived notions still make their way into the thread whether or not the replays are watched. Awful posts are still made, and stupid points are still raised. The only solution is to not have a community filled with many idiots
|
How much does anyone want to bed people will start the [Q] threads after HoTS brings some more newbies  .
|
Lol back all evidence...this guy.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 19 2012 07:11 NrGmonk wrote:- 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.
Not trying to undermine the actual rule, but (just what's) my take might help some people here get the idea a little better: If you post something dumb or more than slightly controversial without backing it up, and someone calls you on it, then you oughta be in trouble.
If it's controversial: back up what you're saying.
If it's dumb: don't post it.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On May 21 2012 11:22 Fogetaboudit wrote:This is something that looks good in theory, and makes sense when you read it, but is just pretty stupid and classic over-regulation in practice. You guys would be perfect in public office Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 00:36 TangSC wrote:
So many people come into a thread with pre-conceived notions, intending to comment or criticize without any experience with the topic.
While this is true, in my experience pre conceived notions still make their way into the thread whether or not the replays are watched. Awful posts are still made, and stupid points are still raised. The only solution is to not have a community filled with many idiots
You claim your solution is to "not have a community filled with many idiots", but that's not a real solution. A solution looks more like "ban people who give bad advice, and ban/warn people for giving unsupported advice", which is a policy that will lead to a stronger community. You can't just issue an edict that a community not have many idiots. In fact, I daresay that it is your solution that makes sense when you read it, but is just pretty stupid in practice.
I consider this revamp of the rules (which is in part just a re-emphasis on rules that are already in place) to be a pragmatic and useful step in the right direction. If you disagree, you're free to offer your own solutions and critique this one, but saying that your solution is to not have idiots is not advancing the debate in a positive fashion.
|
What the... ban people who give bad advice? That won't lead to a stronger community, it'll lead to a stale community where noone ever has a differing opinion, and after a while to a dead community.
I'm sorry, but "ban people who give bad advice" is just so elitist and plain wrong.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
Well, I mean "warn/ban people who give bad, unsupported advice"-- after all, if the issue is one of differing opinion, that's totally legitimate, right? If both people support their arguments properly then it will be a helpful disagreement. However, if both people just say "I'm right and you're wrong" that won't help at all.
The fact of the matter is, people giving bad advice is NOT the same as people giving differing advice. In fact, people can give bad advice that's the same as someone giving good advice! I could look at a replay and be like "oh, yeah so you're cutting scvs from 5:00 to 7:00 and that causes you to fall behind in macro even though you FE. If you hadn't cut scvs you'd have been fine in the midgame" and someone else could say "rofl macro better" and he would be giving bad advice, even though technically it agrees with me.
|
Sure, but take countering a cannon rush as an example. Two ways, both works most of the time but dropping your own cannons is "the right way". Someone answering relocating and sending zealots to the opponents mineral line gives bad advice in the eyes of the majority. Should he be banned for that?
My point is that "bad advice " is very subjective, and getting banned for it is harsh.
If by "bad advice" you mean "pointless and unsupported" then yes, if it's done repeatedly, but someone giving advice that doesn't work needs to lead to a discussion, not a ban.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
That's a strawman-- if zealot guy makes a reasonable, well-supported argument for his strategy, then he is in no danger...
EDIT: Also, bans aren't decided by what the majority of people think, they're decided by the moderators. So this idea that the majority of people will have some malformed opinion isn't valid. In fact, the majority of people having a malformed opinion is the reason these guidelines are in place.
|
I really think that this will drasticly reduce numbers of low-info postsm which will lead to better quality.
Though I do have two questions.
1. Will this somehow deal with argues in [G] threads, where people start to discuss SIMILAR strategies, even if they back-up their words?
(for example a topic discussing roach max out@12 minutes, and someone start to argue, that this strat is irrelevant and back up with a strategy of roach-ling max-out@12 minutes)
2. Will same restrictions apply to [D] topics?
|
United States8476 Posts
There's only going to be bans for people who continue to make the same mistakes. Good advice that isn't supported will get warned. Bad advice that isn't supported will get warned. "Bad advice", as long as it's backed up and well supported is fine, although I will usually try to refute it not in a warning, but in an actual post.
On May 21 2012 16:38 Rimak wrote:
I really think that this will drasticly reduce numbers of low-info postsm which will lead to better quality.
Though I do have two questions.
1. Will this somehow deal with argues in [G] threads, where people start to discuss SIMILAR strategies, even if they back-up their words?
(for example a topic discussing roach max out@12 minutes, and someone start to argue, that this strat is irrelevant and back up with a strategy of roach-ling max-out@12 minutes)
2. Will same restrictions apply to [D] topics?
Not really sure I understand the question. Your example is kind of confusing as well, because they're basically the same strategy. A roach max always includes some lings. Care to rephrase it or give an actual forum example?
|
Monk, I just want to thank you for the much needed moderation around here. You're doing a great job, and I personally believe this change in policy to be a huge step forward for the TL forums. I look forward do seeing this implemented.
|
I think this is a good initiative, but is there any room left for theorycrafting? I mean, if a person comes up with a good strategy versus zerg, I as a zerg player like to theorycraft a bit on what would be good responses. I'd post these responses in his thread, but get warned because I can't back it up with replays etc? Or how would that work?
|
United States8476 Posts
On May 22 2012 05:57 wcr.4fun wrote:
I think this is a good initiative, but is there any room left for theorycrafting? I mean, if a person comes up with a good strategy versus zerg, I as a zerg player like to theorycraft a bit on what would be good responses. I'd post these responses in his thread, but get warned because I can't back it up with replays etc? Or how would that work?
You don't necessarily need replays. Analysis also counts as evidence and as long as you support you theorycraft with sound analysis, you'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
