Regarding Gameplay+

Get Ogre Here·Dec 18, 2018·5 votes·6,017 views

I really like the idea of this sub-board. Only the actual educated discussions can get through, it's good. The problem is, it goes on huge periods of not being used ever, meanwhile I imagine a lot of people send in Gameplay+ posts that either don't get looked at or get rejected. One thing you can do is potentially being less strict. I'm not sure about what guidelines the moderators use to accept Gameplay+ posts, but with so few being accepted, maybe these guidelines are a bit too strict. I understand this is supposed to be heavily moderated but what's the point of having good discussion if there's almost no discussion at all?

I think the goal should be to get (on average) about 1 thread on there every other day. Now you may not get the amount of requests needed for this, and to that I say maybe just get it out there more? I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but if more people know about it more people would want to post there.

Obviously my suggestions aren't the best ones, but I just hate seeing this sub-board being semi-dead so I just decided to throw some things out there. Feel free to flame my ideas if you want.

20 Comments

The EcdysiastDec 18, 20185 votes

They reject threads that disagree with the popular opinion, flat out. It's essentially no different from Gameplay, but the popular opinions can't get downvoted while the unpopular opinions can't be seen.

Regardless of how in-depth your reasoning or facts are, they'll reject threads they don't personally agree with.

rujitraDec 18, 20181 votes

You have any proof of this?

The EcdysiastDec 18, 20183 votes

{quoted}

You have any proof of this?

Yep, several of my threads of the same objective quality (in regards to the stats, numbers, and overall presentation) have been denied solely on the basis that my conclusion, despite being in line with the facts, is not the popular-- but factually inconsistent-- opinion. And it's even more hilarious that KnightsKemplar was one to comment when they were the culprit in one such case.

And they even said themselves that yes, they are biased. You can just scroll up to see the admittance of guilt. They aren't truly looking for discussion that will effect gameplay, they want one of two things: to hear the echoes of their own opinion, or to let through threads that are so clearly false they can feel smart disputing them.

They even go so far as to pretend the issue of low post counts is new to the holiday season, when in fact it's been there since the introduction of the G+ board.

But bigger than that is the inherent flaw of the G+ board, that it openly encourages incorrect use of the voting feature on the normal Gameplay board via its removal of the downvote function. Per the guidelines, posts that lend to discussion are supposed to be upvoted even if you disagree, NOT downvoted to show your disagreement. If they instead made some stickies to explain that rule and the unhealthy ramifications ignoring that rule has had on the boards (most prominently but not solely the fact that it means Riot cannot take Gameplay seriously because it's just an echo chamber for the popular opinion even when the facts don't support that opinion), it'd work far more towards actually solving the issue.

Instead, though, they created the Gameplay+ board to allow the opinions of the moderators-- those who are most active on the boards because they have the most biased opinions-- to be the only ones that are shown in a good light. Then when they nerf an already-underperforming champion like Pyke, they can point to G+ as evidence to back up the unsubstantiated opinions of the regular Gameplay board that this is what the people want despite all threads to the contrary being denied.

rujitraDec 18, 20182 votes

This isn't proof.

Provide screenshots of your denied threads.

The EcdysiastDec 18, 20181 votes

{quoted}

This isn't proof.

Provide screenshots of your denied threads.

Go and try to make one. It's better if you experience it firsthand.

rujitraDec 18, 20182 votes

Lol. So you're lying.

AugustHeatHazeDec 19, 20181 votes

go make one yourself and take screenshots the burden of proof is on you

ModKnightsKemplarDec 18, 20184 votes

The people who spend much time on G+ know this isn't true. I often approve things I don't agree with because I want to step in there and have the interesting discussion about that disagreement.

ModKnightsKemplarDec 18, 20184 votes

When we set out with making Gameplay+, my goal was to generate a different kind of discussion than what we already had on Gameplay. I'm definitely biased, but I think that has been wildly successful. I see a lot of discussions there that wouldn't survive the downvote shakedown on Gameplay, and that's exactly what we wanted to provide on G+. A place where deep, and perhaps controversial, discussions had a better chance of remaining civil and generating insights.

And that's really the only goal that it needed to meet to be a useful part of the Boards, imo. I am personally pretty opposed to putting a requirement on the frequency of the posts; I actually love the perspective you can get by looking at a sub-board where the 12th most recent post was a month+ ago. That's kinda cool and different. Now, looking at the history, you are definitely right that there haven't been a lot of approvals lately... but we are actually fairly up to date on the queue. We just haven't had a lot of submissions that meet our criteria.

I'm very interested in hearing feedback, particularly about the "get it out more" perspective, which is something that I've heard quite a bit from many sources. We can brainstorm a bit over the break about ways we could make some of the posts there more visible and make people aware of the sub-board.

But as for the lack of posts right now, I would say that I think the holidays are probably a predictable time for a sub-board like this one to be a bit slow. Everyone is travelling, doing finals, wrapping up work for a long break, holiday shopping, etc. That just leaves less time for things like forum posting, especially on a sub-board that demands a bit more thoughtful input. I wouldn't want to make any rash decisions based on the last month of G+, as a result. We'll see how it shakes out in the New Year, and if there are ways we can invigorate the sub-board a bit more proactively.

ModUlanopoDec 18, 20183 votes

There's also the fact we're still in preseason. Many discussions will have to wait until the actual season begins.

Get Ogre HereDec 18, 20182 votes

{quoted}

When we set out with making Gameplay+, my goal was to generate a different kind of discussion than what we already had on Gameplay. I'm definitely biased, but I think that has been wildly successful. I see a lot of discussions there that wouldn't survive the downvote shakedown on Gameplay, and that's exactly what we wanted to provide on G+. A place where deep, and perhaps controversial, discussions had a better chance of remaining civil and generating insights.

And that's really the only goal that it needed to meet to be a useful part of the Boards, imo. I am personally pretty opposed to putting a requirement on the frequency of the posts; I actually love the perspective you can get by looking at a sub-board where the 12th most recent post was a month+ ago. That's kinda cool and different. Now, looking at the history, you are definitely right that there haven't been a lot of approvals lately... but we are actually fairly up to date on the queue. We just haven't had a lot of submissions that meet our criteria.

I'm very interested in hearing feedback, particularly about the "get it out more" perspective, which is something that I've heard quite a bit from many sources. We can brainstorm a bit over the break about ways we could make some of the posts there more visible and make people aware of the sub-board.

But as for the lack of posts right now, I would say that I think the holidays are probably a predictable time for a sub-board like this one to be a bit slow. Everyone is travelling, doing finals, wrapping up work for a long break, holiday shopping, etc. That just leaves less time for things like forum posting, especially on a sub-board that demands a bit more thoughtful input. I wouldn't want to make any rash decisions based on the last month of G+, as a result. We'll see how it shakes out in the New Year, and if there are ways we can invigorate the sub-board a bit more proactively.

Okay I see what you're saying with most of these points. I feel like it's just individual opinion on some of these (or maybe I'm just stubborn :p) but you're definitely right on the holiday thing as for why there may not be as many posts.

ModKnightsKemplarDec 18, 20182 votes

Definitely worth talking about though.

I'm probably the most extreme on the volunteer team thinking that it's a success. I think that's why I always go there in the conversation; of course, how you feel about G+ depends on what you were expecting it to do, and that isn't the same for even everyone who helped make it happen.

I think most of the people interested in G+ would like to see more activity on it. That's feedback we definitely ought to consider, so I appreciate you taking the time to articulate it!

DrCyanideDec 18, 20183 votes

{quoted}

When we set out with making Gameplay+, my goal was to generate a different kind of discussion than what we already had on Gameplay. I'm definitely biased, but I think that has been wildly successful. I see a lot of discussions there that wouldn't survive the downvote shakedown on Gameplay, and that's exactly what we wanted to provide on G+. A place where deep, and perhaps controversial, discussions had a better chance of remaining civil and generating insights.

And that's really the only goal that it needed to meet to be a useful part of the Boards, imo. I am personally pretty opposed to putting a requirement on the frequency of the posts; I actually love the perspective you can get by looking at a sub-board where the 12th most recent post was a month+ ago. That's kinda cool and different. Now, looking at the history, you are definitely right that there haven't been a lot of approvals lately... but we are actually fairly up to date on the queue. We just haven't had a lot of submissions that meet our criteria.

I'm very interested in hearing feedback, particularly about the "get it out more" perspective, which is something that I've heard quite a bit from many sources. We can brainstorm a bit over the break about ways we could make some of the posts there more visible and make people aware of the sub-board.

But as for the lack of posts right now, I would say that I think the holidays are probably a predictable time for a sub-board like this one to be a bit slow. Everyone is travelling, doing finals, wrapping up work for a long break, holiday shopping, etc. That just leaves less time for things like forum posting, especially on a sub-board that demands a bit more thoughtful input. I wouldn't want to make any rash decisions based on the last month of G+, as a result. We'll see how it shakes out in the New Year, and if there are ways we can invigorate the sub-board a bit more proactively.

Honestly, I look at Gameplay+ and see a failure. These "discussions that wouldn't survive in Gameplay" aren't discussions, they're info dumps. Even then many of these topics are ones that have survived in Gameplay. Gameplay+ is barely more useful than a Diamond Only No Talkback Board.

Don't believe me, look at Gameplay+ itself. Look at the replies and see how many replies back and forth (layers in Discussion view) they get at best. Should Dark harvest be removed? what can be done? - 2 Balance: An idea on how scaleable items can help - 5 Regarding Lissandra's preemptive nerfs - Why this was carried out the wrong way - 3 There needs to be some sort of comeback mechanics pertaining to vision - 4 Evil Grain Silos: A History of Dark Harvest - 2 Elemental Drakes and how they could be improved - 3 Runes are too restricting, What about choosing a 7th "Wildcard" Rune - 3 Displacement/Airborne Crowd Control Rework Idea - 4 Udyr and Adaptive Force - One of The Problem of Jungle Phoenix Udyr - 4

All of that representing about a month's worth of posts and replies, with the best discussions having 5 replies once,

Meanwhile if I sort Gameplay by Recent I get actual discussions: Akali's win rate decreased to 41% on first day - 11 Its generally not your junglers fault - 4 Worst ranked game I've played ever. I feel like uninstalling. Need help/advice. - 4 When to realize a champ is dying - 5 Theres no point in playing tanks now... - 10 Volibear R should apply his AD to all units - 7 Let's Talk: "I'm high tier and best assassin for 10+ patches in both low and high elo" Aka Shaco - 4 Can we revert the kha zix 90% slow? I don't even know why he needs it. Might as well make it a stun. - 4

The only thing that keeps the Gameplay+ Posts from being buried is there's no traffic of any sort to bury them with. One player's Necro posts count for half of Gameplay+'s traffic today, that should tell you something about how much "discussion" is happening.

ModKnightsKemplarDec 18, 20182 votes

This argument is entirely predicated on the assumption that quantity = quality.

This is what I mean when I say people are evaluating on different standards. If I was looking for a LOT of comments, yes, it's a failure. I'm not looking for that.

DrCyanideDec 18, 20183 votes

My argument is that "discussions" involve back and forth. Are you looking for discussions in Gameplay+ or not?

ModKnightsKemplarDec 18, 20182 votes

I don't think we need 12 comment, back-and-forth comment chains for this sub-board to be useful. As long as useful information and decent arguments are present, 2 and 3 comment chains are fine, and potentially even preferable.

When I see comment chains that are that long, the argument has frequently derailed or devolved to name-calling. That's exactly what I don't want to see on G+. A few, thought-provoking comments are fine.

I completely understand why that's not appealing to many of the folks that are frequent posters on Gameplay. Again, that's not a success condition for me. I think it's fine to have a sub-board that draws out some other people, just like the rest of the sub-boards here.

DrCyanideDec 18, 20183 votes

I see longer comment chains as a "there's this reason that counters that suggestion." If a comment "derails" then it's because the related subject had bearing on the idea presented. This shows up in the longest comment chain in Gameplay+, where the OP was on scaling items for ADCs, and a discussion started on how something with a soft power curve like Archangel's might be a good goal to shoot for, followed by what is good to emulate in Archangel's and where it falls short. It all serves to further the discussion on what's needed.

A lot of Gameplay+ just feels like they're looking for a grade on their essay or for a Rioter to read their opinion piece. Those are fine things to shoot for, but it feels disingenuous to say that they're posts designed to make discussions happen.

The EcdysiastDec 18, 20182 votes

{quoted}

I see longer comment chains as a "there's this reason that counters that suggestion." If a comment "derails" then it's because the related subject had bearing on the idea presented. This shows up in the longest comment chain in Gameplay+, where the OP was on scaling items for ADCs, and a discussion started on how something with a soft power curve like Archangel's might be a good goal to shoot for, followed by what is good to emulate in Archangel's and where it falls short. It all serves to further the discussion on what's needed.

A lot of Gameplay+ just feels like they're looking for a grade on their essay or for a Rioter to read their opinion piece. Those are fine things to shoot for, but it feels disingenuous to say that they're posts designed to make discussions happen.

EXACTLY. And when you do try to make something specifically looking for a discussion, they don't allow it through because it can be easily derailed.