Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Turban Tribunal > Thread: Maybe we should consider changing the maximum post limit outside VW?
Thread: Maybe we should consider changing the maximum post limit outside VW? This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 22, 2010 07:46 PM

Quote:
So yes, +QPs depend on Moderators AND members. It's just that only a handfull of members use this feature!

I think this is an important point.  I try to give mods a heads up when I see a post that I think is QP worthy, and I have benefitted from people who have kindly suggested my posts as the same.  Not only does it spread the responsibility around, but the practice also makes the atmosphere of the Community more positive and friendly.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted February 22, 2010 08:54 PM

Quote:
The proplem with QP's are that they are awarded to posts. Not users.
Like it is with all kind of prizes? Handed out to a user, but given due to a kind of action...

Or do you think a military medal is given to a soldier coz he is a nice and talkative guy?

Or the nobel prize for physics is given to Stephen Hawking because he is such a poor human being?

I think the posting limit and the flood protection is a great feature. People who really wanna contribute to a forum instead of flooding it to show "how cool" someone is can be seperated pretty easy that way.

And the past showed it pretty often: Even users who are not that good in writing or english recieve +QP just for their effort to make HC a better place.

This is what is misunderstood pretty often. Many members think they should recieve a +QP more often because they discuss very well...or always seem to have a "good point".

No...make this place a better place...just by sharing your knowledge with others...and if it is usefull for others...you have made HC a better place.

That easy
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mamgaeater
mamgaeater


Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
posted February 23, 2010 01:36 AM
Edited by mamgaeater at 01:43, 24 Feb 2010.

Quote:
The proplem with QP's are that they are awarded to posts.

Qp stands for quality post anyway.

You don't need qp's to be a good user anyway. the community judges you on being a good user. Look at xarfax and sir steven. both had numerous qps but weren't exactly respected


edit: I mean that they weren't exactly respected after they did what they did to lose that respect
(i don't know what sir steven did but xarfax deleted a great number of his posts with qps on them.)
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
william
william


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
posted February 24, 2010 01:34 AM

They were both respected, but they just made some bad decisions in their time.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mamgaeater
mamgaeater


Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
posted February 24, 2010 01:40 AM

I should rephrase that.
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted February 24, 2010 11:27 AM

Summary:
Here I basicly try to construct how an optimal community works, how you find an objective measure of basis for the community to which you define and justify the rules of said community.
How you then test these rules to find the spot of most effeciency. That is as few rules as possible, without decreasing the basis (in this context defined as making this site a better place, i.e. contributing to the site). Or in other words, maximize the basis (what Val wants (which I argumentate in this case really is what we all want)) in regards to maximizing the freedom of each user.

Introduction - another viewpoint
I feel every inquire have been answered in this thread. Many of the arguments placed for and against have been repeated. I see nothing productive coming out of it. We don't really need undocumented statement for or against of equal value, because they are after all undocumented. We need to find out.

I'll try to rationalize of the most effecient behaviour and hope you people will see this as an opportunity to really find out who's right and not go in all defensive mode.

The first pillar - the basis
So for any community, no matter if it a dictatorship or democratic, there must be some kind of basis upon which we make the rules of the community. We don't just make rules for the sake of making rules after all, so we need to know this basis. This basis is something the ones in charge agree upon, it is something we use as our purpose in making rules, it is something we always can go back and look at when we communicate to find out if what we say belongs to the ways of the basis.

I don't think there's much doubt what I mean by the basis here, I mean the very thing you guys use when you say, making the community a better place. After all, that is the sole reason for the rules, making the community a better place. The doubt on my part lies in what you guys exactly mean by making the community a better place. We need some kind of objective measure here.

Of course no doubt a basis, or now defined as what makes this site a better place, is nothing set in stone, as in it can be changed, and specifically by Val and those he have given power to. However as the moderators of this community are particular open minded towards their users, this dictatorship does look alot more like a democracy, because the moderators do in general listen to the users, at least that is my experience. That means it is not only up to Val, or the moderators alone to define the basis, yes they have the last saying, but I am certain it is us, the users, who in the end will be defining what makes this site a better place.

The second pillar - justification
But I am also certain no rule will be set in place because a large part of the community wants it, it must be justified. The way to justify a given rule, is to argument that it makes this site a better place. Here assuming it is an objective measure we have defined. However this part is in itself made of two pillars.

The first being the justification through logic. That is really what we have been doing here guys. Giving arguments, using the logic presented to us by the power of our brain to try to come with for - and against for a given change. If there aren't any reasonable arguments for a change, then clearly it'd be a waste of ressources to do so. But in this case, with all the arguments presented, claiming that there's no reasonable argument for change is really farting in the face of the people who wrote in this topic, on both sites actually.

Because for the second pillar of justification, testing it out, you'd over some period of time test how well a given change works and by that find out how the rules should be adjusted.

Suggestion
So I suggest, as there are very valid arguments for both an increase and a decrease of the limit, and as the limit itself seem rather random, and as many seem to be voting for change (either less posts or more posts), I suggest that we actually test it.

Because I am certain we all agree, that there's no point to rules that does not contribute to the site in the first place, thereby directly working against the basis of making this site a better place correct?

So I suggest that we make a new thread for defining what makes this place a better site, as an objective measure. Then we'll for a period of two weeks change the maximum post limit to 5, evaluate. The next 2 week a limit of 10 or 15, depending on the evaluation. Then more than 20 for 2 weeks, then unlimited for 2 weeks and as we evaluate for each step, I believe we'll find the optimal limit. I believe we'll find the limit of 20 to be to little, but the limitless to be too much. I think this is really something we should test, or all the talk about contributing to the community and making it a better place seems like empty talk.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Geny
Geny


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's backside
posted February 24, 2010 11:46 AM

While the idea of testing is very interesting I see a problem with the time scale. The limit is here mostly for new and/or less responsible members to learn a more... let's say refined way of posting. If we change the limit every two weeks we will only see how it affects those who are already here, in other words those who have already developed their posting style. It will not show how the changes truly apply to new members and even the old members won't have enough time to adjust in just two weeks.

In my opinion, for this test to really prove something each phase should go on for at least six month to really give any meaningful results which would include data on new members who have been "born" into the new limits and will also give time to the veterans to try and fully adjust before they make their final decision.
____________
geny is a meanie - fred79

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted February 24, 2010 11:52 AM

Quote:
Suggestion

So I suggest that we make a new thread for defining what makes this place a better site, as an objective measure. Then we'll for a period of two weeks change the maximum post limit to 5, evaluate. The next 2 week a limit of 10 or 15, depending on the evaluation. Then more than 20 for 2 weeks, then unlimited for 2 weeks and as we evaluate for each step, I believe we'll find the optimal limit. I believe we'll find the limit of 20 to be to little, but the limitless to be too much.
Even though I understood your point and your effort, I am pretty sure this won't happen.

If you're not able to make this a better place with 20 posts a day, you won't be able to do that with 40 posts a day neither..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted February 24, 2010 12:19 PM

About the time frame. You might be right Geny, I don't know what would be a suitable time, whatever you guys agree on is probably fine by me.

Quote:
Even though I understood your point and your effort, I am pretty sure this won't happen.

If you're not able to make this a better place with 20 posts a day, you won't be able to do that with 40 posts a day neither..


I don't understand your argument
Angelito, don't you agree that if there's absolute no difference to contributing between 20 and 40, whereby all 20 is doing is reducing the freedom of the poster more than 40, that 40 is to be prefered?

Anyway I wrote a long answer too, before I realised what confused me. I think I'll post it, maybe there's some inspiration in it as well.

Also as this is my 19th post of the day I'll be back this evening.
Conclusion
Any rule that is not optimizing the ability to contribute is limiting the posters unecessary, actually lowering the ability to contribute.

If the 20 posts rule in itself does not contribute, but only limits the users without reason, then the rule itself should be removed upon your own argument of lack of contribution.

Arguments for both cases are valid, the real thing to do now is testing.

Arguments
There is something vital I believe you are missing. The point is not if more than 20 makes it a better place, it is, if more than 20 makes it a worse place.

Let's assume we have this objective basis of measure to what contributes. Now we are not going to make rules that says everyone should do something <insert random very funny stuff> which is pointless in the first place. We make the rules in regard to optimize the purpose of this basis, which is to contribute the forum, but we do also wish to optimize the freedom of the users. Otherwise any kind of rule that neither makes the place better, nor worse, would be justified, and that does in reality make the place worse.

The exact same can be said about the 20 post maximum rule. It might very well be preventing some serious good posts, just assuming that qp's are an objective measure of contribution right now, we might very well have missed many qp worthy posts that people thought of in the moment, but never got to post because of this limit, than we had people stop spamming.

Especially in these time where we don't see regular spammers (at least I don't), the rule seem very unecessary.

However these are all arguments presented earlier, and I honestly think they're sufficient valid that not testing this out makes the whole speech of contributing to the community very hollow.

After all who is to say that post 34 of the day would not contribute something great? No one can know. Likewise post 36 of the day could be the worst spam seen in a long time. Test it, find out. That is the propper way in my opinion.




Thinking about it, I think we probably should find a common agreement on the limit for testing, in reality it only affects a limited amount of people, and I wonder if the rule, in stead of being attached to quality points, should be attached to posters?

Do you guys think it is necessary that some of us "long timers (I have been for about 6 months, about 4 months active I guess)" should be limited this way? If it isn't necessary, is it not doing anything else than contributing to have this rule?

The reason I started to take this different approach is that I just realised that if any vote where to take place, it'd be people unaffected by what they voted for, who'd be those who voted, that is tyranni of majority in my world. Maybe only the people who are affected by this gets to vote and then everyone gets to decide about the change?
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
wog_edn
wog_edn

Promising

The Nothingness
posted February 24, 2010 12:52 PM

With 40 posts daily I doubt people would need to consider the quality of their posts anymore, and it would probably decrease the overall quality of the posts and lead to way more spam. 20 posts should be enough unless you're very active in discussions, and in that case you should be able to acquire some QP's.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted February 24, 2010 12:59 PM

This is not the time of debating the arguments. What you just wrote have been written. Likewise it has been written it make no sense to have a rule related to the poster that change related to single posts.

Please don't start repeating the arguments over again, we have been through this, there are good arguments of both sides.

Let's test and see what works best, that would be contributing in my opinion, not repeating the same stuff over and over again.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
wog_edn
wog_edn

Promising

The Nothingness
posted February 24, 2010 01:03 PM

Or you could spend your posts trying to get some QPs instead of trying to change the entire system. Most are satisfied with it the way it is, from what I understand.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elvin
Elvin


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Tastes like chicken
posted February 24, 2010 01:06 PM

So many words one simple truth, no limit bad. You don't need to test it or come up with theorycrafting to reach this conclusion.
____________
Being human is a roller coaster ride of emotions during rainstorms and sunshine, sprinkled with moments when you can almost reach the stars.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
phoenixreborn
phoenixreborn


Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
posted February 24, 2010 03:05 PM
Edited by phoenixreborn at 15:34, 24 Feb 2010.

On another forum I go to there is a maximum limit of 2 posts per day.  There are still flame wars just with more people chipping in.  I don't think post limits bigger or smaller are going to have much effect on basic internet member behavior.
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Azagal
Azagal


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
posted February 24, 2010 03:08 PM

Quote:
Or you could spend your posts trying to get some QPs instead of trying to change the entire system.

Finally someone said it. Funny how we still got some many pages out of such a simple understanding.
____________
"The superior man is modest in
his speech but exceeds in his
actions." Confucius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Geny
Geny


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's backside
posted February 24, 2010 03:32 PM

Actually when you think about it, ohforf, the current system was in testing since the day it came to be. Now in the three and a half years I've been here I can remember only two members who both contributed to the community and found the limit too low (or at least said it) - you and Asheera. Asheera was without doubt a one of a kind phenomenon and you don't seem to be too limited by the system, just slightly hindered in the days when activity is above average. So the way I see it the test shows that the current 20 post limit works fine.
____________
geny is a meanie - fred79

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted February 24, 2010 03:37 PM
Edited by ohforfsake at 15:39, 24 Feb 2010.

Quote:
Or you could spend your posts trying to get some QPs instead of trying to change the entire system. Most are satisfied with it the way it is, from what I understand.


Please stay to the topic, I just posted that we're repeating the arguments, to which you once again repeat the arguments. Here are shares response to exactly that on page one:
Quote:
A suggestion is to award QP's for long time good behaviour. Not only would it be fair to the ones with good posts, but aren't QP-hunting. It would also encourage good behaviour, not single good posts(I hope you understand the difference). It would mean that the person, not the post is awarded.

Shares have been here for more than 2 years and have not got any qp's.

It should honestly not be necessary to continue the arguments here people, it should be rather clear, either remove the connection between qp's and post limits, or let's change the post limits and find out how it work.

I don't know much about ADAM, but I suspect that had it not been tried, people would today complain about no ADAM system.

You learn through trial and error, all the contribute to the forum makes no sense if you are not willing to actually make some trial and learn from it.

Quote:
So many words one simple truth, no limit  bad. You don't need to test it or come up with theorycrafting to reach this conclusion.

Truth can only be achieved through experiment. Unless you guys have tried it before, then I think it is high time. As veco wrote earlier, these aren't the times of spammers, that limit seems completely unecessary, why this resistance against finding out and contribute to the forum through that?

Quote:
On another forum I go to there is a maximum limit of 2 posts per day.  There are still flame wars just with more people chipping in.  I don't think post limits bigger or smaller are going to have much effect on basic internet member behavior.


To me that sounds like a kindergarden, because you write that these people have high limits (like children that can't behave) and write that still they don't behave.

I honestly don't think any of the members that have been here for just a few months and have not shown any sign of spam spree should have this limit. I don't arrogantly (yeah sorry about that, but I think it is) claim that I am right, but I think the right thing to do is to test it at the very least.

@Geny - I don't doubt it works fine, because this is after all a pretty great community. No what I think/believe is that the community is responsible enough that it'd work just fine without the limit as well.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
phoenixreborn
phoenixreborn


Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
posted February 24, 2010 03:55 PM

Here is a sample.  Can you imagine someone wasting his or her posts on stuff like this when you get 10 per week.  And yet it happens.  And there are similar wars right here on HC like in the religion thread.

Quote:
> Sir, you may like his posts, but calling other posters "fool" and "dingbat" as he just did in his previous post is hardly elegant. In this behaviour, he is no better than the poor other fool.
>
>  ML,
>  Denmark
>

I wondered where this cretiness with a brain made solely of third
string Danish cheese had gotten to. Well, right here, with nothing to
offer at all. With every post she shows her stupidity with the pride
of an intellectual street snow, but fewer resources.
AI


____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Geny
Geny


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's backside
posted February 24, 2010 04:03 PM

Quote:
No what I think/believe is that the community is responsible enough that it'd work just fine without the limit as well.

Right now? Maybe. Heck, most probably. But I again must remind you about the time scales and other factors. Right now we are in a quiet period, have been for a long time now. The influx of new members is very small nowadays. However, when a new Heroes game is announced, the number of newbies raises significantly and the system must be ready for it. Showing that raising the limit right now won't prove anything in the long run and when things change it might end up hurting us more than it ever helped us.
____________
geny is a meanie - fred79

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
william
william


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
posted February 24, 2010 05:31 PM

Quote:
It should honestly not be necessary to continue the arguments here people, it should be rather clear, either remove the connection between qp's and post limits, or let's change the post limits and find out how it work.


This whole thing is about QP's. If you had 3 QP's then you wouldn't complain about the system would you? EDN didn't go off topic, he was spot on with what he said.

The system is fine how it is and it's always the same thing with members who don't have the the amount of QP's to bypass the limit. I was the exact same back in the day. Plus, a lot of people who have posted in this thread have been here for a while so they really have seen a lot of what has gone on through the years and you've only been here for a short time. So by us telling you that it really is fine, you should believe us, because changing this system would be a disaster.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0962 seconds