EPT[VOTE] SC2 Player quality limits in order to post - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
| ||
|
yomi
United States773 Posts
i doubt this will happen as it segregates the community too much. I think TL admins would be fine with a high profile players only forum but probably wouldn't split out 10% of the community away from the others and hold them up like they are too good to speak to anyone else. That's not my opinion, but I think it's how a lot of TL admins think. Myself, I am used to posting on 2+2 a lot and I really like the way they split up the forums by stakes (it's a poker forum). The game is really very different in different skill levels. Strategies or balances that are true at one skill level do not hold at others. | ||
|
TrevorJK
United States77 Posts
Since people are using AJ and EJ as examples, I'll continue those. ArenaJunkies has a rating requirement to post and the forum has basically become an incessant shit pool of posts that is now just cliques and random shitty posts and whining, little moderation for quality posting. Elitist Jerks on the other hand has no requirements to post, as long as you make a quality post,you wont get reported by the community. You can now get all the information you need for raiding and optimization on the site. There is no definitive line that would just make a board good. It is up to members to report bad posts and moderators to ban the bad posters. Eventually you'll make progress and get a decent board as a result. | ||
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
| ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
| ||
|
ironchef
Canada1350 Posts
The latter is generally why I dont think special forums will ever happen, but I think I'd rather see something like Featured strategy writers/posters, or something to feature people with a record of quality strategy posts. I sort of do this mentally already, and skip certain people and look out for certain people in discussions. I dont know the implementation specifics, but something in that direction is probably more realistic. edit: just to be clear - I am not opposed to it, but I dont see it happening because it won't be a big improvement given the downsides. | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On September 21 2010 09:01 ironchef wrote: I am not really anti-elitist, but I think it's a bad idea. I think you are overestimating 1200 diamond's a) skill b) understanding of the game c) ability to communicate them clearly and without bias. d)ability to bypass checks. What I'm saying saying is you will still get the usual sc2 forum crap. You might gain a bit, but at the cost of alienating people and undermining the other forums. The latter is generally why I dont think special forums will ever happen, but I think I'd rather see something like Featured strategy writers/posters, or something to feature people with a record of quality strategy posts. I sort of do this mentally already, and skip certain people and look out for certain people in discussions. I dont know the implementation specifics, but something in that direction is probably more realistic. Yep. I believe it was IdrA who said, "I'm not a game designer; I don't know how to balance the game, just that it needs fixing." or something to that effect. | ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
On September 21 2010 08:51 Titan48 wrote: Good posts can come from anyone, and bad posts can from anyone. Theres no need for a forum that requires a certain rating. Good players can be wrong and good players can be right. "Good" players may also not be good. It is up to you as members of the community to report posts that are bad and make sure those posters get warned/banned. Since people are using AJ and EJ as examples, I'll continue those. ArenaJunkies has a rating requirement to post and the forum has basically become an incessant shit pool of posts that is now just cliques and random shitty posts and whining, little moderation for quality posting. Elitist Jerks on the other hand has no requirements to post, as long as you make a quality post,you wont get reported by the community. You can now get all the information you need for raiding and optimization on the site. There is no definitive line that would just make a board good. It is up to members to report bad posts and moderators to ban the bad posters. Eventually you'll make progress and get a decent board as a result. But we can have both moderation and requirements. I don't see why so many people fail to see this. | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On September 21 2010 09:03 Medzo wrote: But we can have both moderation and requirements. I don't see why so many people fail to see this. The issue is, who will the moderation focus more on: the lower ranked players or the higher ranked? The thought would be that they would be given more leeway and special treatment. | ||
|
NeVeR
1352 Posts
On September 21 2010 04:26 VonLego wrote: An issue with the "idra/lzgamer/huk" level only forum -- Very small group of folks who have the least to gain and most to lose by discussing strategy online. I could be totally off here but that is what I'd think. This is a great point. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
Also, how many invites there would have to be to make it big enough, with good discussions happening daily? There is no point to it if there won't be much going on most of the time. I think TL Attack, Liquipedia articles news, GSL News and Tournament Roundups news with all of their replays and VODs already serve the purpose that maybe could be achieved with separate subforum. That's why I also agree with this: Netwars.pl in general uses [kkd] tags* for threads where OP wants no morons and trolls to show up. It makes up for moderation not as strict and sophisticated as that on TL. *[kkd] is a shortcut of "kacik kulturalnej dyskusji" which (roughly?) means "cultural discussion corner". I think [hdo] as in "high diamond only" would suit SC2 strategy. Those threads would still be accessible by all users or by all users who added their BN id to their TL profile. Making any statements in those threads while not being high in diamond could be grounds for a ban or warning. | ||
|
coltrane
Chile988 Posts
So leave it how it is and start being mature posters. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5651 Posts
this seems like a lot of "can you guys post your strats for me so I dont have to practice" talk | ||
|
Armsved
Denmark642 Posts
On September 21 2010 09:09 coltrane wrote: I think we (everyone in the community) should be supporting mods in the strat forum So leave it how it is and start being mature posters. If only the world was this simple  | ||
|
tok
United States691 Posts
| ||
|
Zack1900
United States211 Posts
My suggestion is to have threads, or even individual posts, endorsed by a highly skilled group of individuals that are hand picked to be the best TL has to offer. I'm thinking people who win big tournaments laying down stamps of approval. No fact checking required and if Idra, Morrow, or TLO endorse it it is a good strategy or brings up a valid point. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
I'd probably not be able to post in it, but I don't need the strategy forum to inflate ego by spamming posts. I want it to have useful information and discussion for me to read, which is negatively impacted by inaccuracy. Bad players cry elitism, it's the same in every forum. Sure, good player does not equal good poster, but it's a lot easier to just mod for good posting when the poor content aspect of uninformed/inexperienced players is taken out of the equation. | ||
|
Ndugu
United States1078 Posts
Bonus Pool kills it though. So then just a pro/semi-pro forum, invite only. | ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
Although I would not mind seeing an "elitist" subforum where everyone can read but only the best players can write. It would definitely serve a purpose. But such a subforum needs to be invite only where TL moderators actually decide who gets invited there. That way only players who participate in tournaments and can objectively be seen to be good or players who distinguish themselves through excellent theoretical posts will get invited. | ||
| ||
