Yes, it did. I know what the term means and that’s exactly what it did.
It’s intent is up for debate but the 2 I’ve seen in years here is either that it promotes good quality posters, which isn’t true given that some people who have it but have no business having it and many will agree. The other is that it promotes participation, which is contradictory to its name and just because you post a lot, doesn’t mean you should. There are people here and in other Blizzard forums who participate very frequently, yet are nobody that’s trustworthy.
This is a sad truth that exists here and in other forums I view. Shill, and you can gain false notoriety and immunity from repercussions. Anyone who says otherwise is flat-out lying.
To answer your question, it’s worse off because it, similarly to the greens, gives a false sense of importance, which is misleading to newcomers and on-lookers. Edit, no that’s not a pot-shot, it’s just a fact. Forums that are poorly designed like this, which present false senses of importance cause more harm than cause good. In well-made forums, those who post a lot, you can clearly see their post count. You can clearly see that they’re here a lot. That’s not an indicator of anything that matters. One forum I regular, posters can be given badges for certain things such as: identifying a bug (big one), creating quality content (guide, video, etc), being generally helpful, etc. Here, trolls get the same rewards, which makes them lose all luster and meaning. And all this, thanks to the more-than-lackluster policing.
As I posted earlier and as the TL3 requirements document , one only needs to.make 20 posts total to become TL3. One really does not need to participate in forum discussions to be TL3.
Therefore, the claim that one “posts a lot” is not factually accurate to be TL3. In fact, if one posts a lot, there are more chances to run afoul of the forum rules.
TL3s with high post accounts are far more likely to be ttrustworthy or at least obey the forum rules.
To illustrate, I will use myself as an example. I have been continuously TL3 since August 2019. That means that over the past nearly 4 years I have done nothong sufficiently wrong on the forum that caused me to temporarily lose TL3.
At times, I have had an unpopular opinion. I have gotten into vigorous disagreements on some topics. Overall, I have tried to be respectful and not make personal insults. I have over 8,500 posts on the forum and not once posted something that caused me to lose TL3.
This is inaccurate. On the D3 forums, we have 2 greens that currently post. Irrespective of your personal opinion, these 2 greens tend to be rather knowledgeable and helpful. They earned tbe right to be “green”.
Trolls do not get the same reward. Trolls invariably get forum sanctioned. They are not TL3 or “greens”.
How would a newcomer even know who was TL3 and who was not? Unless one knows the in and out of the forum, the primary tipoff would be the ability to post pictures and provides links to more websites. TL3 do not have a forum demarcation that they are TL3.
You use that term often, and i’ll be honest, I don’t think you really know what it means.
Again, you took what I said out of context. On purpose or not.
Micro what? If you’re talking about that rena guy, I’ve had him blocked since last year. He knows I did and I made it very clear that I was doing it. I have most trolls and bad faith posters blocked save a couple left where I’ve not put the effort in yet. I just see their name and scroll past it without even reading what they say. So he could be posting winning lottery numbers and I wouldn’t know the difference. So if you say he “poked holes”, I’ll take that with the world’s largest grain of salt as it’s more than likely not true in any way, shape, or form, similarly to nearly everything I’ve read from him… thusly why he/she ended up on the list.
Talking directly to someone who you know has you blocked speaks volumes. Many will take that as not playing with a full deck, but that’s a side conversation for another time.
I’m not feigning anything. My position has not changed with this in years. You can look at my post history to confirm this.
Not sure what this means, honestly don’t care. I stand by what I said.
If you want to have a discussion about this, I’m more than happy to. I love a good conversation and sharing ideas/thoughts. If you’re just here to try picking a fight and be snarky for no reason, I’m not interested. I’ll happily discuss your feelings about it. We may not agree, but it’s perfectly ok to do so and remain amicable.
Do you recall the fairly recent discussion about the claim that one does not need a PC account to post on the D3 general discussion forum where you posted a screenshot of an edited post?
Just sharing some thoughts and facts. Some people are able to be objective while others are not. To be fair, that’s not exclusive here. I was half expecting it to devolve into name-calling but sometimes, people do surprise you.
But the vast majority of the criteria to obtain / maintain TL3 are based on participation, some of which are even on a rolling 90 day basis (e.g. likes given) with a decay, i.e. it’s not something you attain once and keep, you have to keep feeding it.
True, but the distribution shouldn’t be used as the indicatior of priority.
Trustworthiness is the more important, and it doesn’t take much more than one’s actual posts vs their violation penalties to help deterimine trustworthiness. The rest, despite being the bulk of the requirments, is a mixture of incentives for both trustworthiness and participation.
Which there should be and hopefully something they look at in the future for continual improvement. I’m not holding my breath, but at the same time, they have revamped the forums before. Some changes good, some absolutely horrible. We shouldn’t rely on a system that’s so abused that it’s a meme to determine trustworthiness. If they simply want it to be a participation trophy, call it as such… “participation level” and it would eliminate some of the ambiguity.
These forums aren’t Bliz’s code so modifications are entirely depended on the owners’ willingness/capability to make changes.
And with trust being the more important intent of the system, it’s more logical to convey that intent in the name, regardless of the ratio of trust determining requirments to participation determining requirements.
Call it “wishful thinking”, which is why I won’t hold my breath.
I can understand that some may think trust is the more important intent (as mentioned, I’ve seen very logical responses about both sides), it’s just sad that it’s misleading. Granted, there are worse things that others have complained about.
I can say more than probably anyone here, very few forums are ever perfect. “They don’t make 'em like they used to”. Heck, I’d take the OG WoW forums over today.
Misleading that it’s name does not equate to reality, as mentioned yesterday. Some will disagree, but others know because it’s been discussed to death on every one of Blizzard’s forums I’ve posted on. The one guy on the WoW forums who has 70000 posts, TL3 but half his posts are 100% pure insults. Someone tried saying “He hasn’t been infracted, therefore, he did nothing wrong”. Yeah, if I steal something and a cop sees me but chooses not to cite/arrest me, that doesn’t mean I didn’t steal something.
Which goes around to why it should have just been called “participation level”, but either way, it’s silly.
