EPT
This has been a minor nuisance before, but now it's becoming epidemic. I see so many people prefacing their posts with "I'm at work so can't watch replays but [...]", people writing their [H] thread only to end with "I'm at work will post replays later", and all kinds of variations like "at school", "at my mom's funeral", etc. ..
This shit needs to stop. "I'm at XYZ" sets off all mod alarm bells in my head. If the post following your "I'm at work" is not outstanding it's basically an auto-warning / -ban. It's the Starcraft 2 Strategy equivalent of martyring.
For one you shouldn't be posting on TL while you are at work anyway, but that's your decision. Moreover though it shows disrespect to the OP, your fellow posters, and the mods holding this place together.
If you really happen to be at work and you happen to have enough time to write up a 5 page guide, then email it to yourself and post it from home when you have your replays. Same for giving advice. You are not helping anyone if you post without having watched the replay, and it's incredibly rude towards the person seeking help too.
So please. Don't use "at work" "on my phone" "whatever" as an excuse to break Strategy forum guidelines.
Edit: Obviously this is about people not watching replays but still posting. If you can watch replays at work good for you, go ahead and make meaningful posts then.
Some good posts from this thread and elsewhere about this issue:
On June 17 2011 01:10 zatic wrote:
That's putting it a bit harshly, but yes.
What you should do is look at the replay, and then give the OP the best advice based on what you see. If that happens to be exactly what he was asking for, perfect. If not, still give him advice about the replay, and point out that he may be asking the wrong questions about why he lost. Of course you can still answer any questions from their OP that might not have been that relevant to that particular game in addition to giving advice based on the replay.
The thing is many people don't realize why they have lost and may give a misleading description. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - after all that is why they are coming here asking for help. But that makes it so important that you watch their replay.
Apart from that it's a matter of respecting the work they put into making a thread and uploading their game.
That's putting it a bit harshly, but yes.
What you should do is look at the replay, and then give the OP the best advice based on what you see. If that happens to be exactly what he was asking for, perfect. If not, still give him advice about the replay, and point out that he may be asking the wrong questions about why he lost. Of course you can still answer any questions from their OP that might not have been that relevant to that particular game in addition to giving advice based on the replay.
The thing is many people don't realize why they have lost and may give a misleading description. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - after all that is why they are coming here asking for help. But that makes it so important that you watch their replay.
Apart from that it's a matter of respecting the work they put into making a thread and uploading their game.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
On July 19 2011 01:23 Umpteen wrote:
Let's break this down one last time:
1. If you don't watch the replay, you are simply assuming the OP has given enough details. Is that really a safe assumption in a situation where someone is openly confessing ignorance?
In my experience, no. Almost without exception, when I've watched a replay the OP has overlooked or downplayed a factor crucial to the outcome of the game. Sometimes they've described themselves as ahead when they were in fact massively behind.
2. There is already a huge amount of readily accessible and useful advice, from the very general to the specific, for all races.
By posting more of the same in response to a [H] thread, you are assuming the OP has not done what they are absolutely required to do which is to first attempt to help themselves via that resource. That's rude. And if by some chance they haven't done what they're absolutely required to do, then you shouldn't be helping them, because by doing so you're giving a green light to everyone else who can't be bothered helping themselves to clutter up the strategy forum with lazy [H] threads.
3. If you aren't willing or able to watch the replay - relax. Someone who can will be along shortly.
So why clutter up the thread with advice that's only going to be superceded?
Let's break this down one last time:
1. If you don't watch the replay, you are simply assuming the OP has given enough details. Is that really a safe assumption in a situation where someone is openly confessing ignorance?
In my experience, no. Almost without exception, when I've watched a replay the OP has overlooked or downplayed a factor crucial to the outcome of the game. Sometimes they've described themselves as ahead when they were in fact massively behind.
2. There is already a huge amount of readily accessible and useful advice, from the very general to the specific, for all races.
By posting more of the same in response to a [H] thread, you are assuming the OP has not done what they are absolutely required to do which is to first attempt to help themselves via that resource. That's rude. And if by some chance they haven't done what they're absolutely required to do, then you shouldn't be helping them, because by doing so you're giving a green light to everyone else who can't be bothered helping themselves to clutter up the strategy forum with lazy [H] threads.
3. If you aren't willing or able to watch the replay - relax. Someone who can will be along shortly.
So why clutter up the thread with advice that's only going to be superceded?
