I’m back to regular…yay…
Personally, I like the revised requirements. Previously, TL3 was about posting in an ethical manner (the requirements about flags and no game/forum suspensions) plus the other requirements including a rather high number of posts read. Now, the new requirements are much more manageable in relation to posts read and TL3 relates more to obeying the code of conduct and not necessarily reading volumes of posts.
Yeah, nothing says trustworthy like randomly liking posts just to maintain an arbitrary number of likes given in a rolling 100 day period to obtain / maintain TL3.
7 Likes
If I am in the right ballpark on the requirements, liking 30 posts among 3,000 read (1%) over a 100 day rolling average is not a high bar.
The point is, giving / receiving likes isn’t an indication of trustworthiness, regardless of how low the bar is set. Everything, with the exception of not having had a forum holiday due to being a naughty person, is a measurement of participation, not trustworthiness.
“Trust level” is not ideal nomenclature. I think that the idea is to capture behavior and recent participation. The advantages of being TL3 are rather modest.
Yep. The Trust levels are multifaceted.
- Prevent people from spamming the forums and self bumping threads (basic restrictions)
- Prevent people from linking to inappropriate or harmful content.
- Prevent people from posting inappropriate images
- Encourage activity/engagement
- Provide a reward of sorts for following the rules AND staying engaged
- Prevent inactive accounts that are TL3 from being abused by spammers/hackers when the player is absent. The requirement for recent activity helps prevent zombie account spam/abuse.
The concept of course is that a more active forum gets more eyeballs and engagement between players (as long as it is reasonably positive), encourages them to come back and participate more. The goal is to have an active community that discusses the game.
Of course, they also want to only give the “rewards” to people who hopefully won’t abuse them.
If this were just about following the rules they would not have the engagement requirements.
Glad to hear that. 
I am back to being a Regular kind of guy again too, yahoo! 
, don’t ask me how I did it but I did step up my Liken and Flag-gen in the last couple of weeks! 
2 Likes
More fibre should help keep us all Regular.
5 Likes
The requirement is still 30 likes. I am TL3 now.
4 Likes
Whatever the requirements are, they are truly ridiculous. It’s like… you literally have to farm this thing, as if it’s own separate video game…
I mean, I can’t even post a link to a freaking Blizzard site or youtube…
I mean, what does the whole “trust level” or whatever even achieve?
Those who wanna criticize will criticize regardless.
The fans (short for fanatics) will like something no matter what.
It’s not going to prevent trolling, as trolling does not require trust level.
If Blizzard wanna delete something, they’ll delete it regardless of the trust level of the user…
Have there been major incidents caused by some poster for those restrictions to be put in place? Or some strange regulations?!
1 Like
Yes. There is a very good reason clickable links and images are restricted.
Well, obviously, there would be. If you can do it, people are gonna do it. Look at some of the free forum sites; spam bots post all day.
I remember a certain ascii piece of art that ended up on the D3 Wizard forums after a particularly bad patch run. That Wizard poster got banned, but he is alive in our hearts.
At Trust Level 2, you can provide clickable links to Blizzard sites. For example…
My US Career Page
At Trust Level 2, whilst you cannot provide a link to a YouTube video, you can however embed the video into the thread. Of course, that makes zero sense, in that apparently it’s okay to literally see the video play in the thread, but not take you off-site to view it. For example…
1 Like
There’s a reason for that, I think. I’m not up on the tech, but embedding a video is safer than going directly to a site, because that site could be malicious. I don’t think the exposure level is the same.
If Blizzard consider YouTube as a potentially malicious domain I’d be genuinely surprised but, if they do, they should treat them like all the other domains that non-TL3 posters cannot link to / embed.
Anyway, the underlying code wasn’t what I was getting at but the content of the videos themselves. If the video’s content is objectionable (for whatever reason) surely allowing lower trust level posters to embed them into the forums makes less sense than only allowing higher trust level posters to link to them.
If I link to something objectionable, you only see it if you follow the link.
If I embed it, you saw it regardless.
I think they consider the risk of a malicious site clickable link greater than the risk of inappropriate content. Both are bad, but having malware/virus files spread is worse than seeing something.
If they genuinely thought that YouTube could be malware / virus infected, why would they allow any poster to link to it, regardless of their trust level?
If they don’t think that’s likely, why don’t they just add the domain to the whitelist of sites that TL2s can link to?
Wait, are we talking about someone posting a link to a keylogger?
Or are we talking about the Hearthstone forums, which were overrun by bots?
Because these are things I can understand. But something like a youtube link, or something like official Blizzard site, links like that should be perfectly fine.
I don’t even know what trust level I am. All I know is, that I have been posting on the Diablo 3 forums since late 2010, then when the new forums got implemented in Autumn of 2011 during the beta I also posted, as well as throughout the years since launch…
And I guess I don’t deseve lvl 2 or 3 or whatever.
I’m not saying, that people should be able to post adult content on a forum about a video games, but is such an offense worth a freaking ban, since Diablo games have always been for mature audience anyways?
if Blizzard considers their own sites such as a link to the armory, a link to an item from the game guide, or link to areatsummit (which is the official D2 guide), then might as well bring those sites down, if they are so malicious…
I am no expert, but I am pretty sure, that if something like youtube was malware, it would get exposed within a day or two. People would notice, the info would end up all over the internet.
Yes. Blizzard can get in legal trouble for not prohibiting that kind of content on a publicly viewable website.
The ESRB rating system is voluntary and rates for specific content coded into the game. In the case of D3 that is Violence, Blood, and Gore. The game is NOT rated M for sexual content so parents should not expect that in Diablo 3.
Further, the ESRB rating specifically says that online interactions are not rated (player interactions). Those have to follow the game companies standards.
Blizzard has one policy for ALL the games and forums when it comes to how we behave and it is very much family friendly.
In-game code of conduct Blizzard Support - Blizzard's In-Game Code of Conduct
Forum Code of Conduct Blizzard Support - Forum Code of Conduct
The forum code of conduct is useful to read as it goes into detail about the kind of language violations that people get actioned for in game as well.
1 Like