Is there any reason they would keep that information a secret? They originally posted the requirements at one time, presumably, to let people know how to achieve TL3 status.
If they don’t want people to achieve it, they could just raise the limits beyond what people can achieve, or else remove TL3 altogether.
What purpose does it serve to inform people that they can achieve TL3, but then not tell them exactly how to acquire it, leave the requirements vague, or just lie to them about the requirements?
It seems like they don’t want people to have it, but then why not just remove it? How is it a good thing to move the goalposts, but then not tell people where they are? What purpose does this serve?
Or is it just that they can’t be bothered to come back and update the post when they make a change? Too much trouble?
If you keep the requirements ambiguous, you can use pretty much any rationalization you want to justify your actions. They like keeping their forum ambiguous. This is noted by the way they use the word “constructive” in their rules, which only badly written rules use.
I wouldn’t worry about it. I browse a few Blizzard forums and most everyone who posts pics do it to troll. There is a guy on the WoW forums who posts insult pictures nearly daily. They have their system here bass-ackwards. When you start seeing trolls with “trust”, it loses all merit.
I’ve reached it a number of times and I never intentionally tried to get it. Do people actually do that? like make a game plan and then put it in action? Just using the forum seems to work just fine.
There are currently 21 TL3s that reached that status by fulfilling the requirements, so I think that most users will not accidentally achieve it unless they try.
Prior to D4 launching, the count was 50-ish for those not manually awarded. Wirh D4 out and D3 S28 getting long, many presumably no longer visit this forum or have greatly reduced their visit frequency.
People generally do not change over time, so if someone is worthy of TL3 at some point, they should be granted it permanently unless they show that they are not responsible enough for it, at which point they should either have to start all over again with the requirements, or it should be permanently revoked.
What it the purpose to having it expire on a person who consistently makes quality posts on the forums?
Also, reading 20,000 posts in the past 100 days does not indicate that a person should be able post images and links on the forums.
It is more likely to be granted to an active forum troll than it is to be given to a responsible and helpful poster.
This is correct, unfortunately. There are a few here and in other Blizzard forums who fit that very description and have no business having any privilege over anyone else. As mentioned, it’s almost always used to troll people. Posting links should be a default thing. If the link is inappropriate, flag like any other inappropriate post.
And again, reading a bunch of posts does not equate to a quality poster in any way, shape, or form. It’s a silly, nonsense metric.
With the mods being so wishy-washy and inconsistent, it’s no wonder there are so many flaws and holes that you’re able to point out, similarly to the ones others have pointed out in similar threads.
As I posted earlier, that is no longer tbe criteria. I had the list of TL3s bookmarked. One could see the requirements relatively easily when “new” accounts were awarded TL3 by looking at their summary numbers.
I have seen trolls get TL3 but almost invariably, they get forum sanctioned and lose TL3.
They stopped permanent TL3 revocation for forum transgressions. I do agree if one has maintained TL3 for a year or more consecutively that TL3 should be manually awarded to become “permanent”.
I diagree. You can see the posters who are TL3. Since TL3 requires avoidance of forum sanction, trolls typically can not get & maintain TL3.
I agree that reading YYY number of threads & posts is not a great metric: however, it at least shows a level of engagement even if you know how to “read” rapidly.
I understand. I meant that page views should not be a major determining factor for TL3, regardless of the number. I choose 20,000 because that is what it was at some point, so it was a determining factor for a long time.
I understand why the discourse software includes it as a criteria. From early on in D3, I argued that the number of threads and posts read was ridiculously high.
The 20,000 number came from the discourse software itself. You can google discourse software and trust levels to get a feel.
Often times the various decisions are for spam mitigation. So if I had to guess, one reason could possibly be to keep spammers from knowing exactly what needs to he done to reach the TL levels. Not that it would stop the very determined, but it could deter some from bothering if they don’t know what needs to be done to reach, say, TL3.
Posting inappropriate links with TL3 can be far worse than it was on the old forums, so preventing newer people who don’t have a behavioral history does serve a safety purpose. Immediate damage can be done while waiting for flags to be reviewed.
It’s only one of several requirements. There’s several more requirements that help establish a behavioral history.
Further, the TL system is not all about quality. A good portion of the requirements are rewards for regular participation.
If you look at theTL 3 criteria, posting was really insignificant. I think that one only needs to make a total of 10 posts and receive 20 likes. These are not on a 100 day rolling average but in total. Oddly enough, giving 30 likes is on a 100 day rolling average.
In 35 years of forums, that’s far more rare than you would think. Plus, here, it’s not like any Joe Blow can make a random account and post links.
It’s one of the most nonsense requirements, especially with decay. You’re either a bad person or you’re not. Ban those that are or reward them with avatar flourishes or titles, not basic forum functions that any other well-done forum has by default. The fact that most people use the “reward” to troll shows it doesn’t work as intended.
I read it the first time and it still doesn’t mean it’s a good design. There are too many caveats which contradict its intent. It’s literally called “trust level”, not “participation level”.