Charlini 说:
As explained on Arni's post, it was based on different aspects that determine both objectively and subjectively the performance of players since Bucharest was played until 1st-2nd week of WNL7. Those sub and objective matters were based on pure skill, statistics on tournaments, performances on tense matches, teamplay(including impact on teammates and communication), game sense(including awareness and decision making) and some other minor details of each player. That being said i'll admit that once i got asked for help to rate the players, i literally filled most considering the criterias i had in mind in 5 to 10 minutes, and this is the reason why some player's ratings were inaccurate or way off where they should be, out of that the list was decent overall and was gonna get a rework and accurate update after WNL7.
Out of that, the list is as scar explained on different posts an opinion, that wasn't really heating things up and has really no reason to get locked out of forums' useless rules. If you plan on developing a team of approved list-makers, allow me to say that considering a list is an OPINION, it will just end up being more biased and less accurate the more people you add to it. Also if you got some fresh formula to show us how Scar's got 99 awareness and I got 93, I'll be happy to show the numbers and give the rocket science mathmatics to determine how someone's decision making is wank compared to another's, maybe that way you'll have those numbers & methods to back up the 'so wished' perfect list. Achievements, Experience and stats are all objective matters that had a massive impact on the ratings on our list, and it was stated on the post so really got no clue where you coming from, just trying to literally set something off out of nowhere.
Let's just be realistic here, read through the posts, allow lists even if they're locked from start, no list is ever gonna be perfect and they're personal preferences after all, but don't sell out that you're gonna do some sort of objectival accurate work with a massive team on a subjectival matter lmao.
It's ironic that the challenge you sarcastically posed to me is so similar to what I would give you as a counterpoint for why your list was locked. There is no formula for calculating some intangible aspect of a player's performance like awareness or positioning, and that's where opinion comes in under the proposed system. This has and always will be the case, but there are tangible aspects which can be reflected in hard stats, and including those lends validity to a person's opinion on the intangibles. Yours & Arni's list does not include any actual statistics or description of methodology, you just said you considered recent performance. What does that
mean? You said yourself that you just haphazardly filled in the ranks and ended up with inaccuracies. By requiring some degree of objectivity, it is expected that in sourcing & presenting supporting evidence the list-makers will take greater care in publishing their lists and will be more transparent regarding their ranking method. That is to say, they won't just hem and haw about recent performance and then throw together a list in 5 to 10 minutes on a whim. In other words, it's still heavily influenced by opinion but list-makers will be required to support their opinions with some actual evidence rather than just saying they "considered" it.
Deacon Barry 说:
Took 30 minutes of the new list for Apollo to sling a barb at Osiris
Your solution sounds **** Marnid sorry. Only licensed list makers can make lists gahahaha
Lists will definitely create arguments, it's kinda the nature of the beast. Whether you think that matters is another point. I think the best solution would be to allow lists and just slap down anyone who can't control themselves with lengthy mutes (1 month?). They'll learn quickly enough then. You can include making obvious troll lists in being unable to control themselves.
I think some of the problem was that the Guildhall was kinda undermoderated at the time when everyone was spamming lists.
Grimsight 说:
Your idea for anointed list makers is not wanted. Let the competitive community do as they please.
Let me explain what makes this policy change a pilot program, and not a universal repeal of the existing policy. Part of why we're planning on an approval list is to ensure that those selected to make lists are considered credible/valuable by the community, and willing to put in the extra work required to make a quality list. Together with the objectivity requirement, this should create a handful of serious, thoughtful lists which can foster positive activity. If the community can handle these threads in a controlled, ideal environment like that, then we will begin lifting these restrictions as well. As a community with a history of creating a mess out of literally nothing, we're not in a position to demand more than that. Saying we've changed means nothing, but showing that we've changed is different. Unfortunately, since we lost the privilege before, we don't get to have it all back at once.
[quote author=Grimsight]I think the opposite will be the case. You say the mixed moderation between boards causes "problems" for you. In the case of the guild hall and clan hall, it's the same group of players posting across the 2 boards. In the clan hall they can bant, but when they go to the guild hall and are banned for it. With a new board competitive players would mainly frequent the clan and competitive area where the rules are more relaxed. For what reason would any competitive player step into the guildhall to terrorize new players again? [/quote]Splitting activity on a declining board is also a problem. You guys are the major contributors to this board, and giving you another board with more lax rules would just shift most of your activity off of this board. I'm personally not worried about competitive players terrorizing new players, because I've very rarely seen it. That's more of a problem in the Bannerlord board. The opposite is actually the problem here. If there's nobody around to engage with new players at all, then they'll think the board is dead and move on. Keeping activity on this board and promoting higher quality content is beneficial for everyone.
Regarding moderation standards, the clan hall vs guild hall distinction is a half-step. A competitive board as it seems to be envisaged by many here would be a full-step, and being near the top of the forum front page would increase its visibility. Off-Topic is OK being a full-step away because it's less visible, so fewer users go there. The subject matter is also different from the primary attractors to the forum, which are TaleWorlds' games. Practically zero users register on the forum specifically to engage in off-topic.
To be absolutely clear, what is proposed is not a permanent solution. This would be a trial period for us to see how the community handles having list threads back. The end-game is to eventually lift all restrictions on list threads and go back to treating them like any other thread, but the community must show that they can handle them responsibly.
