Éditer l'avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • La grandeur minimale recommandée se veut de 800px par 800px
  • Grandeur maximale: 1MB
Glisser l'image pour repositionner
Sauvegarder
Annuler

Yojimbo

Membre depuis
11 avr 2018
Messages dans les forums
5351
Messages par jour
5,24
Sujets de discussion
22
Biographie
Pressing "Publish" is not always necessary.
Forum: Site Discussion11 jan à 15 h 58
Forum: Site Discussion11 jan à 15 h 44
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>ACC and a Fantasy Hockey section could exist as they're quite self-explanatory, but how do you define or enforce the difference between an AGM and a bouncy house section? Opinions as to what a good deal or a good framework for a deal range wildly and are far too subjective without some mathematical value assigned to players, prospects, and picks. The league itself doesn't even abide by that. How should a new user who's only ever really experimented with AGMs in an NHL-20 setting understand that their trades aren't realistic before posting? Most new users already abstain from previewing the work of other users and a post limit (ex. you need 25 posts to submit an AGM) only really serves to limit site growth. There's a pretty big draw to this site if you can just drop an AGM right after signing up.

What realistically happens is we end up with the same setup we have now, but with the current moderators being asked to move tens to hundreds of more threads than normal. What happens if users don't get the point and continue to post those more wild AGMs in this new "Serious AGM Threads Only" section? Do you expect us to just warn and infract more users? I've noticed a lot of members here aren't apt to report these kinds of threads and are more inclined to just piss and moan about them and how the moderators don't do their jobs.

If anyone wants to see more quality and less of the obnoxious, troll material in the AGM section, realistically the only things that need to happen are as such:
1. Report the bad stuff
2. Improve on the constructive criticism you give to the not-so-bad-stuff

I don't know how many people I've had to tell this to, but the moderators here do not filter through every post made on the site. We only come across trolls and such when they get reported. I have 9 hours of schoolwork per day to manage during my week. Some days, I have enough going on at home or in life that I only have time to check the reports list instead of posting or making an AGM or two. We cannot be a 24-hour surveillance system; the closest we get to that is when users give us a hand by reporting posts and threads so we can address them accordingly.

Conversely, if you want newer users to start abiding by the rules or making an effort to post quality, a lot of "senior" members need to start doing the same. I believe we've been far too lenient on the "[Team] declines" posts that offer no feedback at all or the general discussion threads that end up in the AGM section. If the expectation is for us to start enforcing expectations for a decent AGM, it should work both ways and we should start cracking down more on the poor replies that don't look to improve the situation as a whole or the users that decline to put threads in the correct forum.

Nobody here started out perfect, but had we started in an environment where we would be forced to "sit at the kids table" until a specific level of quality in an AGM post was met, many of us wouldn't have stuck around. Instead, we took the feedback given to us and learned how to make a more realistic trade or signing. Everything was incremental. Other users had patience for you, extend that courtesy for the new users we have today. I would expect there to be some sort of relationship between the growth this site has had, the number of bad AGMs, and the number of quality users that have grown out of some of the more silly stuff. This place kinda needs those unrealistic AGMs and the users willing to listen, learn, and improve on their ideas in order to grow. CapFriendly itself has clearly become more popular, and with that, the userbase has grown and you're seeing more of those posts. Either report them or work with them.</div></div>

If you are going to allow non-constructive AGMs then I am fine with non-constructive replies to them. Instead of giving the replies warnings/points you should just remove the AGM that started it. Treat the cause not the symptom. It is a chicken or the egg kind of thing, but how can you demand constructive only replies when allowing goofy AGMs?

Maybe make it so that a mod reviews the AGM before it is actually posted. Otherwise you will keep getting replies of just "No" or even "This is stupid" Reviewing AGMs before they post would fix a lot, and the mods can decide what goes in a legit AGM section and what is folly and should go into a junk AGM section.

Having AGMs reviewed before they post will also cut back on troll AGMs from the get go as the trolls will know they won't get posted at all. They will not get the satisfaction of the attention. Those will vanish quickly. It will also help the new people as they will figure out that bad PlayStation AGMs are not getting put into the serious AGM section, but in the funZone.

Another bonus of review before post is that it might push people to the messageboard section. A lot of stuff gets created as AGMs that is just messageboard fodder. Many AGMs are not AGMs not even ACCs. Review before posting will push that to where it actually belongs as well.

I don't know how many AGMs you usually get a day, 150 or so? Reviewing that many would be daunting at first, but the troll AGMs, messageboard fodder, etc would fall off quickly and slash that. Also having the ACC section would cut into what needs to be review as well. Within a week it would probably mostly take care of itself. and the number that would need to be reviewed would be very manageable.

Ounce of prevention...
Forum: Armchair-GM11 jan à 10 h 57
Forum: Armchair-GM 8 jan à 15 h 54