Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I don't even understand what this shitpost is supposed to imply
I posted in the last 5 or so discussion reform threads, is that what you want? Is that enough to make me a reform-opinion-expert?
No, I'm just wondering, in general, what are your credentials? Are you studying a degree? Working? Unemployed? Just because I want to get to know you better, not because I'm 'implying' anything.
Originally Posted by Ele
No, I'm just wondering, in general, what are your credentials? Are you studying a degree? Working? Unemployed? Just because I want to get to know you better, not because I'm 'implying' anything.
You want to get to know me better by randomly asking me questions in this thread?
I'm sure you meant to imply absolutely nothing and are just posting 100% offtopic, right mate?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by Ele
Should get people to outline their credentials (or lack of) before they post. Then we can take them seriously (or not). Speaking of Pig, just curious, what are your credentials?
Of course you should not have to give your credentials to take part in a debate, unless the particular credential is relevant to the topic.
Enforcing the rule would be extremely elitist and would encourage looking down on people and discounting their opinion, even if their argument is good
Originally Posted by Redundant
http://historum.com/ is an excellent example of a discussion based forum that works very well because it's a gather of experts who exchange information about certain subjects.
That's not the case for the discussion board here. I don't see it happen either.
Toribash related discussion happen everywhere all over the forums.
The replay board is (presumably, I wouldn't know since I don't check it at all) filled with people discussing replay related problems.
As long as the discussion board does not have a defined purpose it has no purpose at all, so it does not work very effectively.
How do you get an active userbase in this environment? Not at all. The target group of the game is not the target group of a reasonable and semi-intellectual platform.
This sums up my overall opinion. Points in bold being things I disagree with and where my suggestion stems from.
I'm still surprised that after so many years people still find the will in them to post in Discussion when they're aware of the general demographic.
Not that it's a bad thing at all.
I really appreciate the attempt to educate the younger player base, but surely everyone realized by now that maybe a dozen (if that much) of the people who post here are somewhat knowledgeable on the topics that are being discussed (hence this whole thread).
The subject in common that "experts" in this forum have is mainly the game itself. [no doubt that there's people with other fields of expertise here, taking interesting degrees and etc, but do you really want to come home and continue rambling about the topics you study to an audience that won't listen? I understand if some people say yes to that and I'm all for a relaxed and comprehensive moderation and overall participation if that's the case]
Discussion about the game and its problems seems scarce on the Replay board (in a way) as it focuses more on specific critics on certain replays according to the general canons that people compare them to.
Suggestions covers it a tad bit, and some channels in IRC ramble (to an extent constructively) about the game, but considering that this is the topic most of us have in common maybe it'd make sense if we'd open this board to discussions about the game itself in my opinion.
Right now I don't find anything on the rules that go against the discussion of some aspects about the game in here, so that might be an easy way to spite a conversation where everyone is already into the topic.
We're still kids in buses longing to be free.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl
Of course you should not have to give your credentials to take part in a debate, unless the particular credential is relevant to the topic.
Enforcing the rule would be extremely elitist and would encourage looking down on people and discounting their opinion, even if their argument is good
I sorta agree;
I feel like if we view bias against posters rather than their opinions as a problem which leads to overaggressive shitposting (not that all aggressive posts are shit, but rational people are less rational when they are angry) then making people have to announce who they are IRL before posting would not help the situation. As Hyde said, as much anonymity as possible might help prevent people making things personal or, to put it plainly, bitchy. While complete anonymity might not be a real possibility anytime soon, we shouldn't require IRL stuff to become forum stuff.
On the other hand, sometimes when people are posting about things it is nice to know they have experience in that region rather than just winging it and hoping they get some facts right. We could advise people to mention experience of topic related stuff when they post somewhere and see if it catches on.
Good morning sweet princess
