Page 2 of 4

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 5th July 2013, 20:25
by battaile
rchandra wrote:They were known good advisors, winrate aside (I'm not even sure if all of them play online).

For the most part this is true, but I can think of a couple of exceptions that enforcing some measurable amount of online competence would have filtered out.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 5th July 2013, 20:31
by gofftc
My first thought to this actually was: Disable postcount in some sections.
But I guess some ppl would complain about loosing 80% of thier postings.....
So better said nothing, but, who cares, those who seek awnsers will read most of the thread they asked in for the first place. (I guess).

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 5th July 2013, 20:37
by pubby
- What if the person never gives advice? Just posts in GDD or CYC. The original gang of counsellors were already known for responding to requests for help. What would be the point of the badge then? Or are you proposing that we change it to simply a winner badge.

The point isn't to reward frequent posters, it's to highlight players whose advice is backed by several wins.

- Thanks is useless as a metric.

I know. I was just trying to come up with a way to show the person is familiar with the forum.

I am also considering using a poll for counsellor election, starting with nago.

The problem with a poll is that they often devolve into a popularity contest. The results would pretty much be the percentage of people who (dis)like nago. That's rarely a good thing to find out.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 5th July 2013, 23:20
by Galefury
I don't play online. Well, I do very rarely, but I have no online wins. Also I'm almost certainly a much worse player than most Counsellors. I try to restrict the little advice I give to things I'm sure about, so it's probably okay.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Saturday, 6th July 2013, 01:53
by Davion Fuxa
A couple things to throw in:

-Winrate should not be used as a Factor - Number of Wins Should. If someone has a winrate of 1 to 'X' and has 50 wins then I think those 50 wins probably mean something; specifically if those wins happen include several species and backgrounds to boot. Potential counsellors would have to submit Morgue files for a specific number of wins - or at least have that many in the saved Morgue files for a Webserver.

-Polls are fine but personally I figure if a sizable minority in the forum strongly object to someone being a counsellor, then that probably is a good indicator that there is a problem with a person being a counsellor. The counsellor position isn't a democratically electable position, its one drawn by consensus. If there are notably discontent with a sizable number of the community, then consensus is not being reached and someone should not be a counsellor; this being the case even if over half the community was to be fine with it.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 8th July 2013, 14:30
by absolutego
Potential counsellors would have to submit Morgue files for a specific number of wins - or at least have that many in the saved Morgue files for a Webserver.


don't forget a cover letter and at least two letters of recommendation.


if you're going to follow pubby's suggestion, how about instead of arbitrary thresholds you have someone who's a decent player and active in the community (this includes irc) decide case by case. preferably erring on the side of too many dudes instead of too damn few but that's another thing. edit: this is probably doomed to never work correctly though.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 8th July 2013, 15:44
by battaile
When considering whether to designate someone as a good source of advice for a game, checking to see if someone has actually ever won said game is the exact same thing as running a full security clearance and background check.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 8th July 2013, 16:03
by HenryFlower
absolutego wrote:preferably erring on the side of too many dudes instead of too damn few


This. In addition, key criteria should be giving good advice to newbies (including 3 runers working on endgame). Should be (IMHO) be looking for good advice on the 99.9% of cases relevant for that population, not on code spelunkers who get all details on edge cases correct.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 8th July 2013, 17:00
by absolutego
i hope that's not a commanderc burn, because that'd be an awful thing.

i think this is getting too convoluted. the whole point of this was to try to get some means to tell at a glance whether that dude is probably giving you good (not necessarily infallible) advice, because the majority of those who try are actually misleading you unintentionally. there's no obvious way to quantify this. but if you give me a list of names i'll tell you which ones you can trust and i'll get most of them right. now get someone who can do that and isn't a couple months removed from things (and well, ideally someone you trust :p), and you're done. consensus be damned (if there's an edge case like minmay offending people for some reason, then that's an issue for the moderators.)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 11th July 2013, 17:53
by Grimm
The present discussion is really all about the edge case of minmay isn't it. The original system - a consensus nomination and a few token votes leading to rapid approval, all in an out-of-the-way thread - has worked perfectly so far, with the one exception of minmay, who is found by some to have an attitude incompatible with a position as giver of advice to new and infrequent visitors. His blue status was disapproved of by some, and his grey status is now disapproved of by some.

Frankly if we just stick with the old system it will probably be fine 99% of the time. However I am going to experiment with a poll for nago. We'll see how that goes. The poll is here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8627

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 12th July 2013, 10:46
by absolutego
perfectly? hahaha

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 12th July 2013, 16:05
by Grimm
By "perfectly" I of course mean "tolerably well".

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 01:51
by Davion Fuxa
I can't say I think much of a two option poll. I'm not against letting it run its course, but I might suggest future polls perhaps have a few more options. Maybe include:

    Yes, 'Yes is Yes'
    Indifferent, 'Catch All Options if we want everyone looking at the poll to have an option to select'

    No, 'Candidate' should not be a counselor due to *insert reason here*
    No, 'Candidate' Should not be a counselor due to *insert next reason here*, Purpose of the No Options is to Filter Votes and help Establish trends for why someone might be voting No

    No, *the generic No Option as a catch-all*

I think the Indifferent Option speaks for itself - I'll note that one reason against adding it though is that people who feel they should Vote don't have an 'Escape' Option and thus being compelled to vote will be forced to pick from an option that actually decides something.

As for the No Options With Reasons - This can possibly help the candidate in finding out how they might improve they commenting, or it can help identify if someone is getting voted down because of ulterior motives not relating to the candidate themselves. It could also be used for 'consensus' to determine if someone should not be a counselor - though personally I'd be against using a poll for that in any shape or form.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 02:50
by XuaXua
Yes, No, Abstain.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 04:38
by Grimm
Davion Fuxa wrote:davionism

I didn't understand any of this.

XX's post I understand, though "abstention" = not voting, no need for a special option.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 04:58
by battaile
Grimm wrote:I didn't understand any of this.

He's using like 500 more words than necessary to say add poll options for "No, because {insert reason}".

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 05:16
by Grimm
earth to davion
that's what the reply button is for

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 12:44
by Davion Fuxa
If its a poll then people just have a tendency to vote and leave the thread - there really isn't a reason to reply to state any specific reason why said candidate for counselor shouldn't be a counselor; only to a throw a vote in to determine if a person should or should not be a counselor. Even if there is replies, it may only be one reply - have an option tied in with the No makes it quantifiable, so if 6 people are saying No for the same reason it is plainly viewable.

Another thing of note is if it is felt that one option for No is felt to have more weight then another - ie, Psieye should not be a counselor due to too many instances gives wrong advice vs, Psieye should not be a counselor due to too many instances of giving confusing advice. One can't really fix experience for a player, so if a counselor constantly makes mistakes then they should get jettisoned quickly; on the otherhand if the information they give is correct but may mislead a player then that's just a problem with their replying and that can be fixed by simply making ones posts clear and concise.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Sunday, 14th July 2013, 17:33
by Grimm
Yeah the poll thing might not turn out to be such a great idea.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 17th July 2013, 08:33
by Sandman25
Perhaps existing counsellors should have 2 (or 3) votes instead of 1.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 17th July 2013, 19:07
by Grimm
I don't think that's possible with the forum software.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 22nd November 2013, 22:43
by battaile
Nominating duvessa

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 22nd November 2013, 23:54
by Galefury
+1 :)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 25th November 2013, 09:47
by nago
+1

Plus, I'd nominate Sar too.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Monday, 25th November 2013, 10:22
by galehar
Being a counsellor isn't just about being right or knowing the game well. If the advice given is cryptic and nobody understands it, it's useless.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 28th November 2013, 16:29
by battaile
galehar wrote:Being a counsellor isn't just about being right or knowing the game well. If the advice given is cryptic and nobody understands it, it's useless.

So wise.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 28th November 2013, 23:14
by nago
Unfortunately, I can't oppose this argument when talking about duvessa. But what about Sar? He's giving since quite a long time a lot of detailed advices, and he's probably one of the current best players online - I think he totally deserves a blue strip :D

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 28th November 2013, 23:27
by dpeg
nago: I think that some posters here are very knowledgeable about the game but exude negativity: Sar, minmay and battaille are the most prominent of these. I rarely read the adivce forum, so I am not affected very much by how you pick counsellors but I can vouch that the comments of these gentlemen in GDD are problematic. (And when I say "problematic", I mean insults and a tendency to favour snotty/witty (your pick) one-liners over actual explanations.)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 29th November 2013, 02:50
by njvack
It's amusing that the couple posts of this thread was minmay (who is duvessa) being made no longer a counselor.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Friday, 29th November 2013, 03:22
by XuaXua
"dck" and "and into" too. They've got the right attitude.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 16th January 2014, 12:36
by DracheReborn
Is the counsellor nomination thing still open? I'd second the recommendation for "and into". His advice is as good as anyone's, and he's diplomatic too!

Guys like dck and Sar are among my favorite posters, but perhaps they don't strike quite the right counsellor tone.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Thursday, 16th January 2014, 15:23
by galehar
DracheReborn wrote:Is the counsellor nomination thing still open?

It always is.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 08:08
by cerebovssquire
+1 for and into's nomination
(Also, this is probably a lost cause, but all the complaints about duvessa don't reflect his recent posts)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 10:28
by Grimm
Lots of and into votes. Anyone against?

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 14:39
by XuaXua
Mine was an old post and shouldn't be counted.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 17:15
by WalkerBoh
And into gets my vote.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 19:34
by Tiktacy
Grimm wrote:Lots of and into votes. Anyone against?


+1 for and into. Also, I don't think duvessa needs counsellor ship, he deserves it for sure, but he is already the best "counsellor" in the tavern, even without a blue name. I wouldn't be against it at all though if he were to get it. :)

But -1 for both sar and dck. As good as sars advice is, he usually buries it in so much cynicism that it's almost unreadable, same goes for dck(but even more so).

Sar should at least be considered though, if he cleans up his attitude then he would definitely have my vote. :D

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 21:09
by duvessa
I'm...seriously confused at what you think is wrong with Sar's posts. The only even slightly rude thing I see in his recent posts is in this thread, and that's only because he was responding to someone who was acting like a total jackass and not responding to much else.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 21:41
by and into
I *think* there were like, one or two very early posts from Sar that were harsher than called for IMO—and I may just be misremembering—but it is beside the point because as far as giving advice goes, he's been very helpful and not impolite in the past couple of months.

It can be a fuzzy distinction sometimes, but there is a difference amongst 1.) being snippy in the context of a heated debate over what advice should be given or how best to play a certain type of character, versus 2.) being snippy when giving advice, and 3.) when having one's advice spurned (which is different than someone just disagreeing with it or opting to play differently). The first and third are understandable and for the most part okay I think, the second is a problem. I don't think the second applies to Sar at all.

The same is true of duvessa and dck. dck does tend to be harshest of the three, but (along with Sar and duvessa) is consistently (much more so than I am!) among the first to provide quality advice in CIP threads started by new players. I give that a lot of weight, personally, and for me that compensates for their having somewhat quicker tempers and/or sharper tongues than, say, cerebovssquire.

So FWIW I am not adverse to any of them being counselors if they really want to, though dck would have to reel it in a bit in Advice maybe. (I think it is obvious they know what they are talking about already though, but if any of them want to be formally made counselors, they deserve it.)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Tuesday, 21st January 2014, 22:37
by galehar
Just to clarify, the reason I removed the counsellor status from duvessa isn't because he was being harsh or mean. It is because his posts are extremely concise and have to be taken very literally. They are often misunderstood and create pointless discussions because of those misunderstanding. Counsellors don't have to be nice people, but clarity is essential IMO. It's not about being right and knowledgeable, it's about explaining stuff, giving advises. Please, keep that in mind when suggesting people for counsellorship.

That being said, I rarely read advice or CIP, so I'm not really qualified to judge those nominations.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 00:03
by Grimm
To summarize the current standings:

duvessa
for: battaile, Galefury, nago (but accepted counterargument), mikee, and into, cerebovssquire

comment: battaile's been banned at least twice. four blue names in favor.

Sar
for: nago, Tiktacy, mikee, and into, cerebovssquire

comment: the thread duvessa linked looks fine to me. I haven't seen anything nasty from him. simply being curt is not a problem.

dck
for: mikee, and into, cerebovssquire
against: Tiktacy

and into
for: DracheReborn, cerebovssquire, WalkerBoh, Tiktacy, mikee

comment: and into is a go as far as I'm concerned. Anyone opposed, speak soon.


I'd like to remind people that a blue name is merely an easy way for new members to separate good advice from bad. Since people are shanghaied into the role, it's not reasonable to expect them to change their behavior for it. And being a little acerbic is not a bad thing.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 00:19
by Tiktacy
galehar wrote:Just to clarify, the reason I removed the counsellor status from duvessa isn't because he was being harsh or mean. It is because his posts are extremely concise and have to be taken very literally. They are often misunderstood and create pointless discussions because of those misunderstanding. Counsellors don't have to be nice people, but clarity is essential IMO. It's not about being right and knowledgeable, it's about explaining stuff, giving advises. Please, keep that in mind when suggesting people for counsellorship.

That being said, I rarely read advice or CIP, so I'm not really qualified to judge those nominations.



Fair enough, in that case I am definitely in favor of sar, he is right pretty much right 100% of the time in GA and is usually pretty clear and concise.

Dck I am still opposed though. I don't want to go into detail though, he gives decent advice, him being a counsellor just doesn't sound right to me.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 02:16
by mikee
dck is a consistent source of clarity that is often sorely needed in advice threads. If I were a new player, I would definitely want his advice. I am in favor of all four.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 02:59
by Grimm
Okay Sar and and into will be added in a day or two. The other two seem to require more consensus.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 03:19
by and into
I am in favor of Sar, dck, and duvessa as well, Grimm. Probably should have made that clearer in my other post, you can put me down as "Yea" for all of them.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 03:42
by Grimm
Done. I didn't read your "not against" as "for".

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 04:02
by and into
Grimm wrote:Done. I didn't read your "not against" as "for".


I stated, in no uncertain terms, that I am not unfriendly to facilitating the countermanding of the denial of their counselorhood. Jesus, Grimm, how much clearer do I have to be? :)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 04:08
by XuaXua
My post was old and was a joke based on their abrasive attitudes at the time. Discount my votes.

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 07:19
by cerebovssquire
+1 to Sar and dck becoming counsellors (also +1 to duvessa, I notice that I'm not in the standings yet?)

Re: the Counsellors thread

PostPosted: Wednesday, 22nd January 2014, 07:25
by Grimm
All done.