And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

Posted by mullycj on 8/22/2017 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 8/22/2017 12:13:00 AM (view original):
“Seems pretty clear...you don't actually play, then why are you posting?”
“Folks that cannot handle alias abuse are snowflakes”
“this forum is … only open to people with actual investment in the game. $4.95 or otherwise”

Guy can’t make up his own mind, but he sure can derail a thread with his BS.

...says the user who's sole purpose of his ALT ID is to derail threads...

LMAO "that's gold Jerry"

Irony. Look it up.

Posted by rogelio on 8/22/2017 6:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2017 11:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/21/2017 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2017 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/21/2017 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/21/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2017 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Still LOL-y.

Alienating any user is poor business sense. But, yes, the forums could be improved. Worrying about volume or who's posting is nonsense. WHAT they're posting matters. I'd start in this thread. You have plenty of negativity about the change and seble himself. From "users" with no teams. Start there. Who cares is spud posted under his alias? Block him. Block me. This isn't a safe space for snowflakes. It's a somewhat public forum.

How much can you contradict yourself!!!

You are for viewpoint censorship, but pro-alias abuse. Folks that cannot handle alias abuse are snowflakes, but you are concerned about censoring "what" people are posting?!

If you are not playing, then you aren't a current user entitled to post. If you are playing, then you will have games played and will be able to continue posting. Simple.

Didn't you also suggest that the number of posts should be limited to 25 over the number of games you have played?

Sure, the number above games played could be more or less, but that isn't censorship, it is simply limiting the use of the forums to actual users.

That limits abuse, not opinion. Why should the forums be subject to constant trolling?

By imposing an arbitrary limit on posting, you're essentially shutting people up.

Let's say you've reached your limit, and you're in that dead period at the end of the season where you're not playing games. You're now shut out from the forums.

How is that a good thing?

What number would satisfy your concern? 100 over? 200 over? There are several folks that toech the forums with bile that either have no team or have hundreds or even thousands more posts than games played. Have you ever considered whether that might make other users disinterested in continuing posting?

Every site has this problem now, but this isn't twitter. You are either playing or not!

I wouldn't want any limit. As long as you have an active team in any game on this site, you should have unlimited posting privileges.

If you don't like what a particular user posts, use the block feature so you don't have to read their posts.

So, we agree that there should be a limit on inactive usernames continuing to post. That's something, but a posting cap at 200 over games played would not be a problem for 99% of active users. WIS really should consider that.

My concern is with what the trolling does to the boards and user retention. You want to read into my suggestion that I'm taking offense. No, I am noticing the silence of the majority of users that would like to comment on the forums, but do not due to constant trolling.

This is an easy change that I am positive would help the tone of the boards when game updates are actually rolled out.

Placing an artificial cap on the number of posts a paying customer can make is just plain ridiculous. It also brings with it unintended consequences.

Lets say you have a long time GD user who has been very active in the forums in a non-trolling manner. Now, you've capped him. His forum posts are now basically restricted to one or two posts a day (based on the number of active GD teams he has).

Now he wants to play HD.

He's basically shut off from the forums because of an arbitrary and silly cap. He can't ask for advice. He basically cannot use the forums for the purpose they are intended. He decides "Well, screw this. Guess I won't bother with HD".

Is that what you really want to happen because of some knee-jerk reaction to what you consider trolling by others?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

This seems exactly right to me. Apparently either Mike's drunk or I am.

I'd add that banning "negative" comments about the game, as several posters have seemed to advocate, is also a really dumb idea. Who defines negative? And a lot of "negative" posts I see are "this facet of 3.0 sucks -- here's how I would fix it." Seems those are posts we want to encourage.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/22/2017 9:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

This seems exactly right to me. Apparently either Mike's drunk or I am.

I'd add that banning "negative" comments about the game, as several posters have seemed to advocate, is also a really dumb idea. Who defines negative? And a lot of "negative" posts I see are "this facet of 3.0 sucks -- here's how I would fix it." Seems those are posts we want to encourage.

I've heard many times the forums are toxic. I guess they aren't toxic anymore and everything is all good. What a weird 180.

Posted by Benis on 8/22/2017 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 8/22/2017 9:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

This seems exactly right to me. Apparently either Mike's drunk or I am.

I'd add that banning "negative" comments about the game, as several posters have seemed to advocate, is also a really dumb idea. Who defines negative? And a lot of "negative" posts I see are "this facet of 3.0 sucks -- here's how I would fix it." Seems those are posts we want to encourage.

I've heard many times the forums are toxic. I guess they aren't toxic anymore and everything is all good. What a weird 180.

First, I may unblock JSS. So maybe I am drunk.

Second, the forums are much better now than they were in Nov-Mar(or so). The constant complaining/griping/crying has turned to periodic complaining/griping/crying.

Finally, "negative" is easy to define but there is a line between good/bad negative. Many of the negative posts in the past were(and you'll see them in this thread if you go back): "They really ****** up HD" or "This game sucks so bad now that I'm gone when I run out of credits" or "Seble ruined HD. Why would anyone trust him to fix it?" That does no one any good. It's like the wife getting a new haircut and you saying "It makes your face look fat" rather than "I like your hair better the way it was." Anyway, back on topic, if you don't have a team and you're being critical of the game, move along or be moved along. No one needs that.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/22/2017 9:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/22/2017 6:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2017 11:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/21/2017 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2017 9:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/21/2017 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/21/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/21/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/21/2017 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Still LOL-y.

Alienating any user is poor business sense. But, yes, the forums could be improved. Worrying about volume or who's posting is nonsense. WHAT they're posting matters. I'd start in this thread. You have plenty of negativity about the change and seble himself. From "users" with no teams. Start there. Who cares is spud posted under his alias? Block him. Block me. This isn't a safe space for snowflakes. It's a somewhat public forum.

How much can you contradict yourself!!!

You are for viewpoint censorship, but pro-alias abuse. Folks that cannot handle alias abuse are snowflakes, but you are concerned about censoring "what" people are posting?!

If you are not playing, then you aren't a current user entitled to post. If you are playing, then you will have games played and will be able to continue posting. Simple.

Didn't you also suggest that the number of posts should be limited to 25 over the number of games you have played?

Sure, the number above games played could be more or less, but that isn't censorship, it is simply limiting the use of the forums to actual users.

That limits abuse, not opinion. Why should the forums be subject to constant trolling?

By imposing an arbitrary limit on posting, you're essentially shutting people up.

Let's say you've reached your limit, and you're in that dead period at the end of the season where you're not playing games. You're now shut out from the forums.

How is that a good thing?

What number would satisfy your concern? 100 over? 200 over? There are several folks that toech the forums with bile that either have no team or have hundreds or even thousands more posts than games played. Have you ever considered whether that might make other users disinterested in continuing posting?

Every site has this problem now, but this isn't twitter. You are either playing or not!

I wouldn't want any limit. As long as you have an active team in any game on this site, you should have unlimited posting privileges.

If you don't like what a particular user posts, use the block feature so you don't have to read their posts.

So, we agree that there should be a limit on inactive usernames continuing to post. That's something, but a posting cap at 200 over games played would not be a problem for 99% of active users. WIS really should consider that.

My concern is with what the trolling does to the boards and user retention. You want to read into my suggestion that I'm taking offense. No, I am noticing the silence of the majority of users that would like to comment on the forums, but do not due to constant trolling.

This is an easy change that I am positive would help the tone of the boards when game updates are actually rolled out.

Placing an artificial cap on the number of posts a paying customer can make is just plain ridiculous. It also brings with it unintended consequences.

Lets say you have a long time GD user who has been very active in the forums in a non-trolling manner. Now, you've capped him. His forum posts are now basically restricted to one or two posts a day (based on the number of active GD teams he has).

Now he wants to play HD.

He's basically shut off from the forums because of an arbitrary and silly cap. He can't ask for advice. He basically cannot use the forums for the purpose they are intended. He decides "Well, screw this. Guess I won't bother with HD".

Is that what you really want to happen because of some knee-jerk reaction to what you consider trolling by others?

Really? A GD user plays 1 season and makes 212 forum posts (200+ #gp), and feels he is unwelcome?

WIS could structure a cap a few different ways, but hardly anyone, except trolls, are caught. For instance, gd games could be multiple of 3; HD *2; HBD & sim baseball *1; and so on. Then start with 25 only. Frankly that's more than enough for 99% of users. Non-issue.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

The odd thing is, after everything else, you concede the point. I strongly disagree that all tools are available to police the threads, but if we are limiting posts to "active users" then we're talking about the same underlying concept.

The question is the difference between user & acitve user. IMHO, if you have more than 2x or 3x the number of posts as games played, then you aren't an active user.

Posted by Benis on 8/22/2017 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 8/22/2017 9:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

This seems exactly right to me. Apparently either Mike's drunk or I am.

I'd add that banning "negative" comments about the game, as several posters have seemed to advocate, is also a really dumb idea. Who defines negative? And a lot of "negative" posts I see are "this facet of 3.0 sucks -- here's how I would fix it." Seems those are posts we want to encourage.

I've heard many times the forums are toxic. I guess they aren't toxic anymore and everything is all good. What a weird 180.

It's actually very straightforward -- thinking that the forums are often toxic does not equate to support for WIS censoring posters. My definition of "toxic/worthy of censoring" is probably very different than yours/Mike's/spud's/whoever's, and I don't trust seble/WIS to draw the line, even if they wanted to be in charge of doing so (which I doubt). You wind up having unpopular posters dinged for being unpopular. Similar principle to the 1st Amendment (which of course doesn't apply here....).

Posted by rogelio on 8/22/2017 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

The odd thing is, after everything else, you concede the point. I strongly disagree that all tools are available to police the threads, but if we are limiting posts to "active users" then we're talking about the same underlying concept.

The question is the difference between user & acitve user. IMHO, if you have more than 2x or 3x the number of posts as games played, then you aren't an active user.

You do know I have about 30,000 more games played than you, right? Am I NOT an active user?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 8/22/2017 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/22/2017 8:48:00 AM (view original):
And, FWIW, the "limit" on posting is really dumb.
A) The user is active. Seems like something the site would want.
B) HD isn't the only forum on this site. Some guys play 5-6 different games here.
C) HBD requires full worlds to start. Some commishes bump their threads 20+ times a day.

I don't really have a problem with restricting the forums to users with active teams. I still think a waiting period is a good idea before removing rights but that would require programming and I'd rather other things be programmed. All the tools we need to police the forums ourselves are in place. Profanity filter and block option. Not sure what else is needed.

The odd thing is, after everything else, you concede the point. I strongly disagree that all tools are available to police the threads, but if we are limiting posts to "active users" then we're talking about the same underlying concept.

The question is the difference between user & acitve user. IMHO, if you have more than 2x or 3x the number of posts as games played, then you aren't an active user.

You do know I have about 30,000 more games played than you, right? Am I NOT an active user?

To further belabor the point, we signed up 5 years, 1 day apart. I average 3061 games per year to you 1340. So regardless of post #s, I'm putting a lot more money to the site than you.

And, FWIW, your initial suggestion was 25 more posts than games played. Now it's 2 or 3 times posts to games played. Pick a lane.

lol restricting posters to a ratio of games played, you guys really don't want new people to start playing this game do ya?

Let's not say "you guys". There seems to be ONE advocate of GP/Posts ratio.