What is even the point of closing all of these threads for two days if nothing is changed in that time? Giving us “time to cool off”?
EDIT: While not much has changed in the threads themselves, it appears several of the more disruptive forum members have gotten temporary bans of varying lengths for “consuming disproportionate amounts of staff time” and “too combative”. So someone did look at the closed threads and enacted measures.
Threads are getting closed because of mass reports of users’ posts
The biigest issue with it is that it stops the flow of the discussion.
Sometimes discussions become a bit personal or out of topic or whatever… That’s why I generally don’t flag any posts. Except ofcourse they are…
I also don’t want posts of others to be removed… Cause you actually do them a favor with that most of the time with some of the stuff they say. i’d rather prefer the person to be gone than having no evidence for his misbehaviour. Thing is once they posted this stuff it’s already been in the forum. Removing it after people already read it is like removing a stone after someone threw it through your window… The window is broken anyways…
I think it would be better if the number of flags for a post is marked somewhere like the likes. So everybody can see how many people think certain posts are inappropriate or whatever. Also gives people a feedback how their posts are received.
The whole process is automated though, both the closing and reopening of the threads.
Being too combative is also a bizarre reason, because what someone thinks is ‘too combative’ is completely subjective.
Say, like a downvote? I believe one of the reasons people use DIscourse is the lack of downvotes, which on other sites carried their own multitudes of problems.
It’s also a matter of majority rule, which always is not correct either, and to properly call bad behaviour out might both be ‘too combative’ and fall under majority rule deciding it inappropriate.
Well the difference is flaggin sets a flag for the staff members. So if you spam flags you annoy the staff.
That’s a difference to just marking something as “I don’t like”.
The Idea is if somebody wants to skip an off-topic conversation he can just ignore all posts that have a flag on it. They don’t need to be removed and it’s even not necessary a staff member took any action.
Just enable an “ignore user” or “ignore post”.
So when I don’t want to lose time seeing two members arguing on how much efficient is X or Y, I can skip that and read something on topic that truly interests me.
But most of the times the people “arguing” don’t deserve to be flagged in my opinion, and too many flags and you can’t read any more interesting things because the thread is closed.
Not good imho.
Question though: with the limitations of the flagging system, the community guidelines specifically tell us to flag what we don’t like. So spamming flags annoys the staff, yet it is something we’re told to do.
(Besides, it’s also y’know, their job…)
And don’t posts that get flagged already have their content hidden? So you can skip those anyway, but to get a gist of what was being said so as not to miss anything, you still gotta click on ‘Show the hidden message’ to read it. You wouldn’t know it’s off-topic until you’ve read it.
Probably they refer to people abusing the flag system, continuosly flagging something they don’t like for no or invalid reasons
Idk. I think it needs more than 1 flag to hide a post.
I also don’t like that posts become automatically hidden if they received several flags. As it seems there were indeed people trying to abuse that system.
I think it should be let open to the reader when he sees a post is flagged if he wants to read it. If it takes additional action to read a post that is most likely off-topic cause it is already hidden, many people will actually just ignore it even if it is hidden because of the abuse of the flagging system.
But this topic is not really some i fell entitled or even comfortable in. Cause most of the time I just want to have healthy discussion. And it seems for me that there are people out there who just want to hinder others having that kind of discussion which is… weird. And Imo the best way to “deal” with that is to don’t give them any kind of tool they can use to forcingly end the flow of a topic. If they are toxic? Who cares - you can just ignore them and continue to discuss with the people who aren’t toxic. But if they can flag your posts and these become hidden for no reason, that’s a problem for the flow of the discussion.
Yeah, my point is that the rules are kept vague so it’s all very subjective what someone thinks is an ‘invalid reason’. They might be doing that genuinely, even, if at times overzealous in it. But the rules permit this behaviour, because it is written in very vague terms and more specifically states if there’s something you don’t like, flag it.
IMO, the automatic feature should just be removed and community managers can just manually review each post. It’s more workload and I can imagine the current workers have more tasks than simply reading and moderating the forums, but in every Discourse forum I’ve used, this reliance on automatic features oftentimes has many negatives. And it could be much worse, here at least you have to make completely new accounts to really abuse the flagging system ( IF this does automatically hide posts after a certain number of flags and similarly for the threads - the latter which I’m inclined to believe),
Though speaking of rules, I think the discussion can be moved to the other thread talking about this instead? We’re very off topic here, but not here: Is someone using bots/alt accounts to flag posts? - #8 by KingofQuebec368
It seems better to have different civs , landscapes and tactics .
It would be possible to get an “ignore user” feature only if Discourse changes it someday. It would affect every forum that uses its technology. If we are to request this, it wouldnt be here unfortunately, but on Discourse however.
Yes, it would be a mess, it would lose readability and you would end up turning aoe 2 into a medieval aoe 3 or at most aoe 4…
Also applies to aoe 3 and aoe 4…
And in aoe 3 I don’t even tell you…Europeans are the same as each other and all other regions are completely different from European ones…
I will pay 20.00 dollars for a client side official mod. I like the mods that changed the sprites of regular units with hero and scenario units but since they don’t get updated like an official mod, they sometimes don’t work anymore.
I believe it is possible on Discourse, but it’s very very convoluted to do so. Might be required to have Trust level 2. Go click on your avatar icon, then Preferences, then Preferences again (first one should simply give you a list of Summary, Activity, Invites etcetera, at the bottom of the list is second Preferences).
Then under Notifications, there is an Users page, where you can also Ignore people. I’ve heard from somewhere that it only lasts for 4 months though, so you gotta readd them again later.
Honestly, so much overcomplication in this thread, if they just changed the skins of a lof of the units, and maybe een gave them some localised names it would be fine. They wouldn’t even have to start messing with balance etc…
a “Paladin” is essentially just a heavy cavalry. A lof of non-Europeans had variations of this, so just change up the skin and maybe give it a local name and you’ve improved the immersion of the game so much.
If they did this they would already have fixed 80-90% of the issues related to regional units.
After that the main things that stick out is the use of big naval units and big siege weapons like trebs and catapults by the American civs. Most of that again you could just reskin and keep the stats the same for balance purposes.
The only thing I really don’t know what you would do about would be trebuchets. Because Americans DID not have trebuchets. But maybe we can let that one slide…
improved immersion at the cost of readability and simplicity. if two units have the same stats they should look the same and have the same name so it’s easy to tell what you are fighting
Meh, I am sure after playing it a while you’d get used to it… I mean its not like I am asking for every 40 civ to have its own units. Just have like 4 or 5 regions with their own skins and it’ll be much better than what we currently have.