| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Eee
Sweden2712 Posts
On March 04 2012 18:36 Dodgin wrote: I thought it was a good thread with some good discussion, it just got derailed pretty hard. also maybe pick a less sensational title. So when/if I release a part 2 it has to be with a different title? | ||
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
On March 05 2012 01:17 Eee wrote: So when/if I release a part 2 it has to be with a different title? I don't know - I'm not a mod, obviously. I just think they don't like sensational titles like " are we killing esports? " in sc2 general, if you made a blog this time I'm sure you can name it whatever you want. | ||
|
Eee
Sweden2712 Posts
On March 05 2012 01:43 Dodgin wrote: I don't know - I'm not a mod, obviously. I just think they don't like sensational titles like " are we killing esports? " in sc2 general, if you made a blog this time I'm sure you can name it whatever you want. lol, you're not a mod. >.< I talked to a mod earlier yesterday and he didnt really mind anything. He said that the title was slightly provoctive but the content was all good and whatever. Then like 6 hours later the thread is locked and someone has removed all of Tylers posts. So mods, why did my thread get locked? <.< | ||
|
Geiko
France1939 Posts
This thread was closed because it didn'trespect strat forum guidelines. However, NrGmonk had taken some time to give very good and very detailed answers to some of the clueless posters in the thread. Since then, I think the thread had a lot more value and would definitely deserved to be read by those wondering about Robo vs Stargate PvP. I guess I find it a bit sad that no one will read such good answers just because the OP is terrible. Wouldn't it be acceptable to leave it open even though the OP is lacking ? | ||
|
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324112 | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
I'd like to request this topic be re-opened. The topic is still a hot topic in the news media and social media and new details are still coming out that are fresh topics for discussion. I just came there to post a new article with newly obtained information when I realized it was closed. A lot of people have invested a lot in the discussion, for example the entire OP was just redone a couple days ago that included all the facts which involved a ton of research. Eventually we will have a close to the investigation and maybe a trial, or maybe even riots in the street, and I'm certain people will be interested in talking about that as well. Finally, I believe the topic hadn't really been derailed. One guy made a bad post and he was banned for it. These things happen from time to time and I think it's better to deal with them with bans instead of locking threads. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:44 BlackJack wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664 I'd like to request this topic be re-opened. The topic is still a hot topic in the news media and social media and new details are still coming out that are fresh topics for discussion. I just came there to post a new article with newly obtained information when I realized it was closed. A lot of people have invested a lot in the discussion, for example the entire OP was just redone a couple days ago that included all the facts which involved a ton of research. Eventually we will have a close to the investigation and maybe a trial, or maybe even riots in the street, and I'm certain people will be interested in talking about that as well. Finally, I believe the topic hadn't really been derailed. One guy made a bad post and he was banned for it. These things happen from time to time and I think it's better to deal with them with bans instead of locking threads. The thread was circular and bitter, there were so many bad posts that it felt hypocritical to moderate anyone at all. However after internal discussion we agreed that if someone wanted to open a new thread with the new information, he would be allowed to open a new thread. I believe dAPhREAk is currently in the process of writing a new op and will be opening a new thread shortly. Hopefully this one will be less poisonous. EDIT: here it is | ||
|
Gnial
Canada907 Posts
The thread was closed because I put a [G] in the title and the closer thought that a [G] was inappropriate. I have a few questions about that. 1. Why is a [G] inappropriate in this instance? The thread is certainly not a [H], [L] or [Q] thread, which leaves only [G] and [D]. The point of the thread was less about discussing - rather, it was to show people something that they hadn't seen before - so it is not [D]. If it is not [G], then what is it supposed to be? 2. Could we not just change the title instead of closing it? | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6260 Posts
On March 31 2012 01:09 Gnial wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324528 The thread was closed because I put a [G] in the title and the closer thought that a [G] was inappropriate. I have a few questions about that. 1. Why is a [G] inappropriate in this instance? The thread is certainly not a [H], [L] or [Q] thread, which leaves only [G] and [D]. The point of the thread was less about discussing - rather, it was to show people something that they hadn't seen before - so it is not [D]. If it is not [G], then what is it supposed to be? 2. Could we not just change the title instead of closing it? Your thread contained what you stated as facts e.g. "superior creep spreading" and you called out pros (e.g. Idra/Nestea) to have "inferior creep spreading" when in reality, it is just your own personal explanation. You have 0 practical top-level field experience results from your technique. If you had convinced a top pro (e.g. DRG) to use it and they say it's better then your title + post would be justified. However, you only had reasonings and nothing else. If your title + post had been something like: hey, I've got this interesting creep spreading idea, what do you think about it? Then it would be fine. Right now, simply renaming your thread to a [D] is insufficient - you would need to redo your post to reflect that's just a discussion rather than fact. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
Pandemik stated it clearly: On March 30 2012 13:04 p4NDemik wrote: This falls far short of the standards for strategy guides on TL. You jump to far too many conclusions and you do very little analysis to prove your hypothesis. He's saying if it were a guide, you need more substance and evidence. But I doubt the thread would be left open carrying another tag. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On March 31 2012 01:09 Gnial wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324528 The thread was closed because I put a [G] in the title and the closer thought that a [G] was inappropriate. I have a few questions about that. 1. Why is a [G] inappropriate in this instance? The thread is certainly not a [H], [L] or [Q] thread, which leaves only [G] and [D]. The point of the thread was less about discussing - rather, it was to show people something that they hadn't seen before - so it is not [D]. If it is not [G], then what is it supposed to be? 2. Could we not just change the title instead of closing it? Because you're writing a "guide" on something that is not in fact definitively good. A discussion is better because you aren't claiming that your idea is inherently superior (which many people pointed out that you did). | ||
|
Gnial
Canada907 Posts
On March 31 2012 05:13 Pokebunny wrote: Because you're writing a "guide" on something that is not in fact definitively good. A discussion is better because you aren't claiming that your idea is inherently superior (which many people pointed out that you did). OK, I understand that it is supposed to be a [D]. Can we just make it that way? Or is it really necessary to start a new thread? | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On March 31 2012 12:26 Gnial wrote: OK, I understand that it is supposed to be a [D]. Can we just make it that way? Or is it really necessary to start a new thread? it's more necessary to write an op about something worthwhile to read and adapt. the concept is just....... no macro creep tumors? same thing as static defense when it is not necessary. you cannot say where a scan will happen. devoting energy to creep tumors and not spawning additional creep tumors from them is not some new ingenious tactic; it's a gamble, or a justification of laziness -.- | ||
|
Bibbit
Canada5377 Posts
| ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
 ) and I noticed the thread LGBolero Map Hacking Incident was closed, but since it was basically just a team announcement/appology thread about a sponsered team removing a player for cheating I would have thought that should be ok.It was closed with the post "Report it to blizzard" which is standard for map hacking accusations, but am I mistaken in thinking that the nature of this thread made it different to the standard "X Map hacked" thread? | ||
|
idonthinksobro
3138 Posts
not my thread but why was this thread closed? If it was closed because of having a bad OP, well it is a simple information thread that needs to be there for 1day and was never intended to have a discussion. | ||
|
Kibibit
United States1551 Posts
| ||
|
Mr.Bimbles
Iceland457 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=328836 | ||
|
Cokefreak
Finland8095 Posts
On April 14 2012 07:32 Mr.Bimbles wrote: thread that I made where I noticed a glitch in the ladder guide and it got locked... and what the moderator said is "use the ladder guide thanks!" and locked it? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=328836 The mod meant you to post this thing into the ladder guide thread, not make a new thread about it, it was closed simply because it does not need a new thread. If there really is a glitch in the matchmaking it's up to the staff then to decide if it merits it's own thread. But based on your post you are just speculating, and one instance of this happening is hardly enough evidence to support that there is something wrong. I'm pretty sure something like this would've been noticed sooner anyway. | ||
|
StarcraftMan
Canada507 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327351¤tpage=14 6 day later, a member of TeamLiquid has written a program that addresses continuing a game from a replay, as a possible solution for tournament disconnects: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=328785 I don't want to sound accusational, but at the risk of being banned, it appears that GMarshal is not very concerned about improving the experience of SC2 and improving the experience at SC2 tournaments. GMarshal, no offense to you - I just want a straight up answer about why my thread was closed, especially seeing that my original thread may have contributed to another TeamLiquid member making an application that directly addresses disconnects at high level tournaments within 6 days of its posting. GMarshal, do you not want to have better features in SC2 and a better experience at SC2 tournaments? Do you not care for SC2's future? | ||
| ||
|
|
LAN Event
Lambo vs Harstem
FuturE vs Maplez
Scarlett vs FoxeR
Gerald vs Mixu
Zoun vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
ByuN vs TBD
TriGGeR vs TBD
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
LAN Event
IPSL
dxtr13 vs OldBoy
Napoleon vs Doodle
BSL 21
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs Sterling
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
