Keeping Trust Level 3 Privileges


#1

While I approve of the Trust Level system and how it keeps the forums clean, the one issue I have with it is that users have no method to permanently obtain the privileges of Trust Level 3. Using my own situation as an example, I prefer to post long, involved threads that usually involve images, but such things take a fair portion of my limited time to write and format and generate pictures for. However, due to me skipping most threads because I don’t find them interesting (because they’re white noise complaints about matchmaking (or reworks (or teammates (or “I’M QUITTING HOTS FOREVER” posts)))), I have lost the relevant privileges to post high-effort threads like those (or even edit the ones I’ve already made), so now I have to game the system by passively scrolling through threads I don’t care about to hit an arbitrary number of Topics Viewed and Posts Read.

I don’t feel that Trust Level 3 should be permanent once achieved as a baseline, but I do feel that it or something like it should be available to obtain for effort-posters like me. Some examples of what I mean:

Trust Level 3 privileges can be permanently applied to an account if a thread or post made with Trust Level 3 privileges obtains 25 Likes. It’s a pretty straightforward concept: if you use your Trust Level to create something that’s widely liked, you get to keep your privilege without having to maintain it by constantly browsing the forums. The potential downside of this is that it might turn things into a popularity contest, but if someone is popular because they consistently make nice things, is it really an issue?

If a user reaches Trust Level 3 but is demoted due to inactivity, they go to Trust Level 2.5, which allows them to create threads with images but not replies with images. This one is also fairly straightforward: if you’ve reached Trust Level 3 and lost it, you can still make threads with fancy pictures, but not replies. Alternately, just bake this functionality directly into Trust Level 2!

If a user reaches Trust Level 3 but is demoted due to inactivity, threads and posts with images require Moderator approval. Slightly less straightforward because now additional human interaction is involved, but still pretty simple: you can still do the thing, but now you’ve gotta get permission.

I started using the new forums because I heard about the ability to post images and I was excited because I like making effortposts that people enjoy. I’ve previously used things like HeroesFire and Google Documents, but now I’m back to being frustrated with the official forums because I can’t post any of the five or so threads that I’ve been working on for the past few months until I jump through some arbitrary hoops.

I feel I should reiterate that I don’t want special treatment, I just want to see more well-done threads like this or see posts like this not have to use the code-link workaround all the time.


#2

Not directed at OP but there are users who should have had their “trust” level revoked for consistent violations of the codes of conduct. Thousands of spam posts comprised of condescension, inflated ego, and personal attacks should permanently lose “trust” levels. I guess you can get away with anything if you throw enough money at Blizzard.


#3

You do actually get your Trust Level revoked if you get dinged too many times for bad behavior, though.


#4

Honestly, they just need to reduce the post count. I spend no more than 2-3 hours a day on the forums, and I spend most of that actually reading the posts, not just skimming through them.

The HotS forums has far fewer active users and posters than the Overwatch forums, but both require you to read 20k posts within the past hundred days. That kind of requirement is pretty steep even on the OW forums, where it encourages weighted-button skimming, but on the HotS forums it’s downright stifling. I’m probably among some of the most active forum users, but because I don’t just speed through every new topic to artificially rack up my posts-read count, I’ve never reached TL3.

This system with this high a requirement actively stifles feedback in favor of encouraging that kind of speed skimming among people who don’t have the free time to spend what seems like 8 hours a day on the forums (looking at you @SamiSha).

They should lower the requirement significantly, probably by at least half.

If you get suspended while at TL3 you automatically get demoted to TL2 for 24 hours after your suspension ends. Afterwards, so long as you still meet the criteria, you get it back automatically.

Personally, I think this is appropriate for general violations of the CoC. However, abuses of TL3 privileges, such as posting inappropriate pictures or links or the use of wiki posts in their violations, should carry a bit heavier penalty specifically related to TL3 privileges, such as a longer revocation of said privileges.

I do not think permanent punishments should ever be used outside of extreme circumstances, such as with severe and chronic trolls or flamers like HoH, Rationail, or MekkaGoo.


#5

While the conditions for lower trust level exist, they do not effectively lower the trust level of perpetrators. I could pull up dozens of posts from certain user’s histories which are clear examples of conduct violations. I can’t actually do this or my post would be removed but the fact remains that the flag threshold for having problematic posts addressed is too high to actually affect users breaking the rules. Just as very few civilians would attempt to stop someone from committing a crime, very few users come to this forum regularly and proactively use their limited number of flags to curb behavior. If the tools were working as intended you wouldn’t be able to look at countless examples in someone’s history that illustrate inappropriate conduct since the posts would have been removed had the tools succeeded.


#6

is not against the CoC tho ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


#7

Actually, to be clear, it’s 25% of the posts made in the last 100 days OR 20k, whichever is fewer.


#8

Yup, that is the biggest issue. Make it 10-15K. That is entirely reasonable I think. 20K is a bit high.


#9

Good post, will provide more feedback later.

I should note, Blizzard should be able to manually set people to TL3 and keep them there. Although I might be mis-understanding Discourse Forum setup.

But having some posters who make high quality posts (I haven’t seem many of your posts, but based on this OP you seem to be one of them) keep TL3 without requirements seems like a good idea.


#10

It tracks posts in all sections of the forums, and while it might not require 20K posts, I was only 18K posts read in under 100 days since I started actively using the forums and had not hit TL3…

So there seems to be that there are indeed near 100K posts made every 100 days.

Or maybe it is dropped off now, and that drop-off is why I recently hit TL3.

Regardless, it is pretty close to 20K.


#11

and then suddenly the suggestion forum gets bombarded by activity, so the gen exclusives get undercut on forum activity for their trust levels. dramatic interlude


#12

i’m here since years :sob:

and i am not even trust lvl 2 i think :sob:


#13

This is not entirely correct.

You are required to read 25% of the past 100 days (age of the comment doesn’t matter), it caps at 20k.

Considering the forum activity here you need to maintain about 15k - 16k posts read in the past 100 days here.

Overwatch forums activity is pretty disgusting if the 20k cap isn’t there I bet you need to maintain about 50k - 75k posts read in the last 100 days.

So yes, it is possible to reach trust level 3 on communities that get about 5000 posts in the past 100 days.


#14

Taking a couple of descriptive words from my post does nothing to invalidate what I presented. Your reply history reinforces my point most vividly. History provides prime examples of how the flag system does not effectively curb non constructive violations of the CoC.


#15

Taking out words won’t invalidate your whole post. But those out taken words meant nothing and I only argued against them.
You failed to explain why you even added them to your list and instead you now just pointing fingers at me.
Go on, link from my history. At least I don’t hide it like you do.


#16

The words mean something as inflated ego is a likely precursors to habitual conduct violations. Hopefully this helps you understand why I added them. Your attempt to bait me in to assured post removal will not work. If there is one thing that actually does get posts removed it is what you ask of me now. Users can view the historical evidence of conduct violating individuals they suspect of consistent infringement on their own. There is no expectation of complete openness on these forums since the option exists to make a user’s post history private. I keep mine private because I value the small semblance of privacy the forum offers. I am under no obligation to change this and there is no tangible benefit for doing so in my view.


#17

“I assume others would do the same what I do: trying to use it against them”.

I could use your history if it wouldn’t be hidden -for a good reason- to prove how you talk water but drink wine (my language’s version of this idiom: He holds with the hare and runs with the hounds).


#18

You are making false assumptions about my reasoning for keeping my history private with zero evidence. You cannot claim to know my reasons for valuing privacy and to assert this assumption without facts is self serving for the very two words you quoted earlier.

“Assumptions are unopened windows that foolish birds fly into, and their broken bodies are evidence gathered too late.”
-Bryan Davis

I have made it clear in the past that I don’t consider myself to have made every post within the confines of the codes of conduct but this does not prevent me from furthering the goals of the CoC by shining light on areas of potential improvement. A person who speeds can still work to teach others the dangers of speeding. None of us are perfect but we can all strive to be better. If my post about holding users with trust level 3 more accountable offends you then perhaps you should reflect on why.

“It has always seemed that a fear of judgement is the mark of guilt and the burden of insecurity.”
– Criss Jami


#19

I wouldn’t call it zero evidence, since there is no negative benefits of making your forum profile public, it has no personal informations. Only forum history, forum stats and a little sign if one is suspended.
So hiding the profile means you want to hide at least one of those.

But nevermind. Let’s go back to topic:
I’m against the permanent trust lvl 3. It could make ppl too confident and ppl should have the right for something based on the past. Let’s live up to the expectstions and requirements everday.


#20

The zero evidence stems from the fact that you cannot assert my reasoning for valuing privacy without my own expression of why I actually value privacy. This would be the same as assuming someone who wears sunglasses are trying to seem cool. Sure this could be a reason but they could also be medically prescribed or used for blindness. The point is that it is pointless to assert without facts or evidence. Being unable to comprehend my reasons for valuing privacy does not mean that no benefits to privacy exist. Also, you mentioned negative benefits and these are contradictory terms that can’t be used together. Either something is a positive benefit or negative consequence.