Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:So let me reason this out here, Killkrazy, maybe I'm a little slow.

There already is a method available on Dakka for people to express their ideas on tactics and list building with minimal interruption by the unwashed masses? And if there was an issue with their article being trolled or tampered with they could report it to the Moderation Staff and expect action on it?

Would you characterize that as a correct statement?

Yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would think the Like/Dislike option would work.

The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would think the Like/Dislike option would work.

So Dakka becomes a popularity contest? I fail to see that helping things.

Pretending some basement-dweller named "Kelets" appears and actually has good tactical advice, how would his +/- rating be interpreted?

Would Kelets' positive tactical acumen outweigh his negative behavior?

I'm with John; sounds a bad idea--just leads to faction building. And if that's what we want, I sugegsted we haev Dakkamunda gangs long ago.

@Killcrazy

Hyperbole seems to be your preferred tactic.

No, the internet big pimpin playa playas won't smack around the new kids. Allow people to be slightly less civil and you will see quality improve. It is a fact that certain posters here have a wealth of knowledge of the game. They are the resource that will enrich everyone else's experience. Allow them to spread that info and do so with a little character. It does increase friction a bit, but it also vastly increases quality.

If people are a little concerned that they will get called out for saying something dumb, they may fact check a bit and think about what they are going to say before saying it. If everyone has a free hand in saying what ever idiot thing pops into their head and then the mods protect them from back lash, it only encourages idiocy to propagate.

Reecius wrote:@Killcrazy

Hyperbole seems to be your preferred tactic.

No, the internet big pimpin playa playas won't smack around the new kids. Allow people to be slightly less civil and you will see quality improve. It is a fact that certain posters here have a wealth of knowledge of the game. They are the resource that will enrich everyone else's experience. Allow them to spread that info and do so with a little character. It does increase friction a bit, but it also vastly increases quality.

If people are a little concerned that they will get called out for saying something dumb, they may fact check a bit and think about what they are going to say before saying it. If everyone has a free hand in saying what ever idiot thing pops into their head and then the mods protect them from back lash, it only encourages idiocy to propagate.

But what if they call YOU dumb? Repeatedly?

I used to really enjoy the Tactics, Army lists & YMDC forums.
Sadly, those who choose rudeness & flaming to get their points across chased me off (and I was more often an observer than contributor).

I absolutely disagree with anyone who says you *need* to be rude sometimes to get your point across. It's simply not true. If you use loaded language (words like slowed, stupid, idiotic, etc.), people will react accordingly. You can tell someone that he is wrong and/or that his advice is bad/horrible without calling it "slowed" or "Stupid."

Talking down to people is a big deal, too. We all know how intelligent you are. When you start using "big words" that the average Joe is unfamiliar with, it becomes apparent (whether it's your intent or not) that you're simply using your words to demonstrate your superiority over the person you're conversing with.


Eric

Reecius wrote:@Killcrazy

Hyperbole seems to be your preferred tactic.

No, the internet big pimpin playa playas won't smack around the new kids. Allow people to be slightly less civil and you will see quality improve. It is a fact that certain posters here have a wealth of knowledge of the game. They are the resource that will enrich everyone else's experience. Allow them to spread that info and do so with a little character. It does increase friction a bit, but it also vastly increases quality.

If people are a little concerned that they will get called out for saying something dumb, they may fact check a bit and think about what they are going to say before saying it. If everyone has a free hand in saying what ever idiot thing pops into their head and then the mods protect them from back lash, it only encourages idiocy to propagate.

I don't think you can have fully considered the ramifications of your proposal.

For example, how would you measure, designate or limit the acceptable amount of rudeness?

Do people have some limitation that they are unable to express themselves clearly without resort to insults? I don't believe it.

Frazzled wrote:

Reecius wrote:@Killcrazy

Hyperbole seems to be your preferred tactic.

No, the internet big pimpin playa playas won't smack around the new kids. Allow people to be slightly less civil and you will see quality improve. It is a fact that certain posters here have a wealth of knowledge of the game. They are the resource that will enrich everyone else's experience. Allow them to spread that info and do so with a little character. It does increase friction a bit, but it also vastly increases quality.

If people are a little concerned that they will get called out for saying something dumb, they may fact check a bit and think about what they are going to say before saying it. If everyone has a free hand in saying what ever idiot thing pops into their head and then the mods protect them from back lash, it only encourages idiocy to propagate.

But what if they call YOU dumb? Repeatedly?

Then they would be wrong!

If people said my ideas were dumb, then I would have to communicate better. I know with absolute certainty that my ideas on tactics and list building are sound. It is on me to communicate my ideas clearly and support them with evidence so that they are irrefutable. That is how you make an argument as an adult.

I do not need someone else to tell my detractors that they need to be nice to me or they will get a time out.

Adults can have a heated discourse without getting butt hurt. If others can't, then that is a reflection of their immaturity. The rules should not be formulated to pander to the lowest common denominator. They should be expected to rise up to adult levels of discourse.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would think the Like/Dislike option would work.

The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

That's a fair point, although I would question if button wars would really ensue (At least to the point of filtering out the content to a noticeable degree).

You could also make the Like/Dislike exponentially harder to increase (So after 10 Likes, each Like click equates to .5....then after 20 Likes it becomes .25, etc). This would slightly inhibit that affect.

@Kilcrazy

It's not about hurling insults, it's about allowing heated discussion to occur. Here things get cut out so fast by mods that you can't even have a real conversation. Anytime things get a little heated, ninja mods step in and cut stuff out.

I am not a rude person, nor do I encourage meanness, but you have to allow people to get a little heated in their debates. It allows good ideas to come out and you create a system where people have to present sound arguments or be called out.

@Reecius

In that vein, I've slightly adjusted something you said to reflect an exact opposite opinion:

Adults can have a heated discourse without getting relying on insults. If others can't, then that is a reflection of their immaturity. The rules should not be formulated to pander to the lowest common denominator. They should be expected to rise up to adult levels of discourse.

Note, I'm note presenting this as a "fixed your post" kind of smart-assery. It's a genuine statement.

Eric

Older Dakkaites complain about change and young whipper-snappers on their lawns!

Full story at 11!

@MagickalMemories

You are correct. You do not have to rely on insults to get your point across. Look at Shep. He presents great advice and tactics and does so in a respectful way. So does Yakface. That is fine. I do think though, that a little bit of sass helps to put a sense of accountability in people. If you know you're gonna get ribbed a bit, you think twice before spouting something off.

I know not everyone is as thick skinned as me, but I think that is perfectly reasonable.

@Platuan4th

Hahaha, right? Let the old dudes grumble.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

I understand your concern, but couldn't this problem be solved by limiting each dakkaite to one vote per thread? Granted this might not be technologically possible, but even the most polarizing dakka personalities probably would NOT gather too many votes from adherents if they only could get one vote (good or bad) from each. That would still allow truly popular threads to stay in the light longer w/out rewarding poor behavior on the part of some dakkaites.

Edited for Stupidity: (added the NOT... which completely changed the apparent point of my post)

Kilkrazy wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would think the Like/Dislike option would work.

The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Alternately, if you make it auto-hide Disliked posts, every post could be its own little ongoing Survivor game. Wouldn't that be fun?

Or would the Dakka server crap itself under the weight of the button-mashing orgy?

I still don't think we should let the idea of non-mod volunteer work slip away (I mean, look at Malfred's contributions!) without more discussion. I'm really up for getting a team together to organize the tactics threads. I don't think the first step needs to be appointing new mods.

(1) Would anyone else be interested in this? Again, I am specifically asking DashofPepper since we seem to have arrived at the same potential solution here.

(2) If we can do that, would mods be willing to bring down the thread locks on people who post duplicate threads?

I'm seeing this thread veer away from practical suggestions that could actually be accomplished (with hard work) toward an unresolvable argument. Could this be the real problem?

Keep talking, Mods are actually discussing these privately.

Help me again, whats the point of the button pushing?

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

legoburner wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

Whats it for again?

Frazzled wrote:Keep talking, Mods are actually discussing these privately.

Help me again, whats the point of the button pushing?

Well, right now if someone has a good post going in the main it can either quickly be fettered off the page by multiple new topics/posts (Therein, others missing it). If there was a Like button, then hot topics would stay up in the ranks without requiring bumps. I would think it would work like a social filter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

legoburner wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

You could also add gallery votes in the score, which might encourage less gallery lurking and more gallery voting.

The Tactics forum needs a couple of stickies. The first needs to be one covering the rules, and if possible then people who haven't posted in Tactics should be directed straight there the first time they enter the forum. The second one needs to provide links to established threads, including the name of the tactic detailed in the thread, and any other pertinent information such as the units involved and the edition of the game.

The threads themselves should be tactic-specific, so whoever starts the thread needs to name the tactic, and describe it. This description should include the units required to pull off the tactic, the purpose of the tactic, the relevant rules and possible disputes that might arise if the tactic is employed, and the situations in which the tactic should be employed. Diagrams are optional, but encouraged. Regarding the naming of tactics, they may not be named after posters or people.

The moderators only need to do two things besides their usual duties: Create the links in the master tactics sticky, and lock threads that duplicate tactics proposed in existing threads; it would be good if the moderator posted a link to the existing thread prior to locking a duplicate thread.

To complement the Tactics forum, and to weed out all the stupid "Well, just take unit A" comments that rightly belong in the Army Lists forum, the tactics thread can link to army lists posted in the Army List forum where people can debate the merits of various units, rather than crowding the Tactics forum, which is rightly what to do with particular combinations of units within specified conditions.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Keep talking, Mods are actually discussing these privately.

Help me again, whats the point of the button pushing?

Well, right now if someone has a good post going in the main it can either quickly be fettered off the page by multiple new topics/posts (Therein, others missing it). If there was a Like button, then hot topics would stay up in the ranks without requiring bumps. I would think it would work like a social filter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

legoburner wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

You could also add gallery votes in the score, which might encourage less gallery lurking and more gallery voting.

Added to the list, even though they're stupid (added them to the like button note).

legoburner wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

Would this be implemented only to keep good threads on top of the trash heap, or could it be added to a user's posts to say, "Hey, this guy knows what he's talking about, you should listen to him."?

Frazzled wrote:

legoburner wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

Whats it for again?

I can promise you it will be one more reason that people will accuse mods of bias.

Nurglitch wrote:The Tactics forum needs a couple of stickies. The first needs to be one covering the rules, and if possible then people who haven't posted in Tactics should be directed straight there the first time they enter the forum. The second one needs to provide links to established threads, including the name of the tactic detailed in the thread, and any other pertinent information such as the units involved and the edition of the game.

The threads themselves should be tactic-specific, so whoever starts the thread needs to name the tactic, and describe it. This description should include the units required to pull off the tactic, the purpose of the tactic, the relevant rules and possible disputes that might arise if the tactic is employed, and the situations in which the tactic should be employed. Diagrams are optional, but encouraged. Regarding the naming of tactics, they may not be named after posters or people.

The moderators only need to do two things besides their usual duties: Create the links in the master tactics sticky, and lock threads that duplicate tactics proposed in existing threads; it would be good if the moderator posted a link to the existing thread prior to locking a duplicate thread.

To complement the Tactics forum, and to weed out all the stupid "Well, just take unit A" comments that rightly belong in the Army Lists forum, the tactics thread can link to army lists posted in the Army List forum where people can debate the merits of various units, rather than crowding the Tactics forum, which is rightly what to do with particular combinations of units within specified conditions.

Interesting but sounds a lot more like a tactical article than a thread.
Give us an example Calamari King. Note the thread on how to deal with demons that I cited (team event, nid/necrons against chaos/demons how beat them) How would such a thread work in this context?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

legoburner wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

Whats it for again?

I can promise you it will be one more reason that people will accuse mods of bias.

Excellent. Remember, bribery works people.

Nurglitch wrote:The Tactics forum needs a couple of stickies. The first needs to be one covering the rules, and if possible then people who haven't posted in Tactics should be directed straight there the first time they enter the forum. The second one needs to provide links to established threads, including the name of the tactic detailed in the thread, and any other pertinent information such as the units involved and the edition of the game.

The threads themselves should be tactic-specific, so whoever starts the thread needs to name the tactic, and describe it. This description should include the units required to pull off the tactic, the purpose of the tactic, the relevant rules and possible disputes that might arise if the tactic is employed, and the situations in which the tactic should be employed. Diagrams are optional, but encouraged. Regarding the naming of tactics, they may not be named after posters or people.

The moderators only need to do two things besides their usual duties: Create the links in the master tactics sticky, and lock threads that duplicate tactics proposed in existing threads; it would be good if the moderator posted a link to the existing thread prior to locking a duplicate thread.

To complement the Tactics forum, and to weed out all the stupid "Well, just take unit A" comments that rightly belong in the Army Lists forum, the tactics thread can link to army lists posted in the Army List forum where people can debate the merits of various units, rather than crowding the Tactics forum, which is rightly what to do with particular combinations of units within specified conditions.

I would also nominate Nurglitch to be a Tactics Mod (and should have done earlier), if there were such a position. But, again, I think the first step is seeing whether users could come to some agreement on how their job (like the standards for the stickies) could work and then actually doing the work. Then we can see if it can be enforced. Then we can appoint mods if necessary/helpful.

Bribery and amusing them endlessly.

Or so I hear from the conspiracy theories about mods.

legoburner wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with Like/Dislike is that it would lead to button mashing wars between the supporters and detractors of certain members.

Actually it is not really a problem. First off, there would not be a dislike button, only like. The score could be weighted based on a number of things like user's rank (mod/admin/dcm), user's friend to ignore ratio, number of posts, time since registered on dakka, total number of moderator actions taken against the user, etc. It would be quite easy to filter out the pettiness and give massive boosts to the opinions of our best members. The only thing holding it back is my spare development time.

I sometimes lurk on beasts of war (newish forum)
They have a like/dislike button,
already it's been abused.
people have voted threads down for fun, tried to sell thumbs up, and generaly voted their mates threads up, even if its a load of rubbish

Manchu:

I refuse to join the moderation team. Leave it at that.

Claypool wrote:Would this be implemented only to keep good threads on top of the trash heap, or could it be added to a user's posts to say, "Hey, this guy knows what he's talking about, you should listen to him."?

Not decided yet. Maybe a little icon next to a user's avatar/info to show they are well respected (probably not though). Maybe a 'best threads' link like recent threads (easy to do). Maybe an alternate default view for every forum that sorts by date and quality instead of just date (harder to do, more pitfalls, but still possible).