Monday, 28th May 2012, 23:06 by TwilightPhoenix
I was unaware of this idea until I spotted random blue names a few minutes ago. Now that I am aware of this idea, I'm going to be contrary based on previous internet experience and say that, while in the short term this can be helpful, in the long term it is a bad idea. A very bad idea.
But how come, you might ask. This is a small community where we're all friends and all that good nice stuff with sunshine and rainbows and runes of zot everywhere, what could go wrong here? If you're asking that (and I'm not assuming you are, though I'm sure someone would bring it up), I raise you several explicit "f$% yous" in response to the removal of MD. We're are on the internet and we're all human, so I hold no illusions here.
My main concern here is by denoting a specific group of forum users as "solid advice providers", anyone without that badge of recognition is suddenly going to be providing less useful advice, no matter how good the advice in truth is. For example, let's say someone is in a situation and asking what to do next and posts a character dump. Someone advises them to cast Fireball. A blue name advises them to cast Freezing Cloud. In this hypothetical situation, both suggestions are equally valid and viable actions. But, chances are, the suggestion to cast Fireball will be disregarded because, hey, that guy isn't a blue name! It's not going to matter what the regular people say, once a blue name chimes in all of the regular people's advice is now invalid.
If you don't believe that'll happen, you'll be horribly wrong. I've seen it happen, time and time again, in various gaming communities. The "good advice" individuals in question aren't always marked with an elite user group and uniquely colored forum handle, but their names are known and once they same something, it's more correct than any other correct answer given, regardless of whether that's true or not. Regardless if it even works for the asker's playstyle or not.
And if some new guy shows up with some never thought of strategy that works as well as they claim? They'll get show down by everyone because it goes contrary to the "good advice guys" words. No, I'm not talking about those who show up, say everyone is wrong, and come up with a huge, in-depth argument that has more holes in it than swiss cheese and end up leaving in shame as a result. I mean the guy who did his homework correctly and actually did come up with something useful. They get shot down and nobody learns or tries anything new. I've seen it happen far too often.
Oh, and there's the risk of potential elitism. The less important bit of my argument here, but there's always the risk of some people going all "I'm a blue name, you're wrong". I've actually already seen that sort of thing happen on these forums already ("I have 7 separate 40-win streaks, you're wrong!") so I'm worried that this'll make it worse.
But yeah, in short, there are good intentions behind this idea, but my experiences on the internet, and in reality, are telling me that, in the long term, it'll cause problems.
The best strategy most frequently overlooked by new players for surviving: not starting a fight to begin with.
- For this message the author TwilightPhoenix has received thanks:
- Amnesiac