Enable Rioters to show their appreciation for threads

boozo·Jul 23, 2014·2 votes·315 views

Ghostcrawler replied in his "balance" thread

That's a reasonable concern. My personal experience from a decade and a half of trying to communicate to players is that if you step into a good discussion, you risk derailing it. Devs can still read and appreciate the discussion, and we do, but if we try to "reward" the thread with our appearance, it ends up attracting a lot of folks who want to make "Rito where" posts or troll or whatever. Troll threads are in essence already ruined, so a dev jumping in can't make it much worse.

Maybe you can find a way to award posts/threads that the developers found helpful in some other way than actually posting a reply. Just put a "stamp of approval" on it, maybe even so it's identifiable who of the devs put his stamp on it, although that might have negative effects similar to what was described, like "ermahgerd, only lowlevel devs here, ghostcrawler doesn't give a hoot!".

Doing so might still kind of derail discussions because people might start to chime in just because they know the thread is being looked at, so maybe make the stamp visible only to participants of the thread? Or allow both options, giving people a personal incentive to keep the discussion flowing first by showing them that their thoughts are being recognized, and when a topic is about to dry out, get a public stamp on so others can look at what is helpful feedback.

13 Comments

Hyrum GraffJul 23, 20143 votes

What if it were visible only to the OP? So the OP gets the satisfaction of knowing his/her thread has been seen and considered, but there's no mark in the redtracker, or in the post elsewhere.

I made a thread with a similar suggestion, actually my first thread on the CB, which a couple rioters responded to with their thoughts.

DaenJul 23, 20142 votes

This is a reasonable suggestion in comparison, but it does have the downside of seeming secretive and/or arbitrarily private. There is also a usage case where the OP of a given thread can mention having Rioter appreciation regardless of whether it's actually true, and it is completely unsubstantiated either way. As a thread creator, it could also be a bit frustrating. Why has Riot decided to acknowledge my thread without giving any feedback?

That being said, I'm not a fan of part of the reasoning in Ghostcrawler's post.

it ends up attracting a lot of folks who want to make "Rito where" posts or troll or whatever

Two things. First off, in an ideal setup this shouldn't actually be possible. If moderation is done effectively, troll replies should be handled relatively quickly.

Secondly, it concerns me a bit that the policy seems to be to lessen possible trolling avenues at the cost of player focus. I understand the desire to make sure not to derail threads, but the reasoning of "we don't want to promote trolling so we don't post" seems flawed.

Hyrum GraffJul 24, 20141 votes

There is also a usage case where the OP of a given thread can mention having Rioter appreciation regardless of whether it's actually true, and it is completely unsubstantiated either way.

True, I didn't think of that.

As a thread creator, it could also be a bit frustrating. Why has Riot decided to acknowledge my thread without giving any feedback?

Yeah, that was basically Heintzer's biggest concern about my "Read by a Rioter" idea.

First off, in an ideal setup this shouldn't actually be possible. If moderation is done effectively, troll replies should be handled relatively quickly.

While I agree with you here theoretically, I think if the volume of spam is on GD levels, it won't be possible. What we need to do instead is reduce the spam - once the spam doesn't exist on those levels, it's no longer a reason for rioters not to post.

Spam reduction might happen through moderation, or perhaps it'll happen naturally as a result of this platform. Either way, it needs to be a proactive approach (preventing spam in the first place), not a retroactive one (getting rid of spam after it has already derailed the thread).

Secondly, it concerns me a bit that the policy seems to be to lessen possible trolling avenues at the cost of player focus. I understand the desire to make sure not to derail threads, but the reasoning of "we don't want to promote trolling so we don't post" seems flawed.

Flawed. Practical. They often go hand in hand.

DaenJul 24, 20141 votes

I think if the volume of spam is on GD levels, it won't be possible.

The way the boards are laid out makes it significantly easier to moderate threads. The main two reasons for this are that there are separate areas (everything moves slower than GD) and players can't just bump something to make it reappear at the top.

Obviously this doesn't necessarily cover comments within threads, but you would think that if a Rioter posts on a thread they might monitor it a bit to promote healthy discussion.

Flawed. Practical. They often go hand in hand.

I disagree. A well-implemented and effective solution to a problem should not be significantly flawed from the outset.

Riot's entire basis of development is player focus. If the company is so careful to avoid trolling that they stop being interactive and engaging, it directly conflicts with their Manifesto.

I know I'm probably reading into his comment a bit more than I should, but "I don't want to encourage trolls so I won't post" is a cop out. If it's not practical to post, it needs to become the obvious practical choice.

Hyrum GraffJul 24, 20141 votes

The way the boards are laid out makes it significantly easier to moderate threads. The main two reasons for this are that there are separate areas (everything moves slower than GD) and players can't just bump something to make it reappear at the top.

I wasn't really talking about spam threads, but about spam comments in threads rioters jump into.

I know I'm probably reading into his comment a bit more than I should, but "I don't want to encourage trolls so I won't post" is a cop out. [...] you would think that if a Rioter posts on a thread they might monitor it a bit to promote healthy discussion.

Say I'm a rioter. I post in thread X. Thread X gets 100 spam posts. I remove all 100 spam posts to keep the thread on topic. If I wasn't jumping in there with a lot to say, that's quite a bit of work on my part. And I don't think that's a reasonable demand on your average rioter.

I disagree. A well-implemented and effective solution to a problem should not be significantly flawed from the outset.

If we had an awesome system like that, you're totally correct. I guess I was talking more about stopgap measures, like rioters personally moderating every thread they step into. As I think I said earlier, I think we need to tackle this problem from a systems level before we can reasonably expect it to be a non-issue.

Riot's entire basis of development is player focus. If the company is so careful to avoid trolling that they stop being interactive and engaging, it directly conflicts with their Manifesto.

This, I'll agree with.

If it's not practical to post, it needs to become the obvious practical choice.

Aaaaand I think this puts us squarely on the same page.

DaenJul 24, 20142 votes

Say I'm a rioter. I post in thread X. Thread X gets 100 spam posts. I remove all 100 spam posts to keep the thread on topic. If I wasn't jumping in there with a lot to say, that's quite a bit of work on my part. And I don't think that's a reasonable demand on your average rioter.

Agreed. However, if there are 100 spam posts on a single thread that aren't handled by the community just downvoting them or a different type of system, we have bigger problems.

I think we need to tackle this problem from a systems level before we can reasonably expect it to be a non-issue.

Yep. My issue is that the high-level direction seems to be to avoid this sort of conflict entirely instead of actually working on the system to accommodate it.

Hyrum GraffJul 24, 20141 votes

Agreed. However, if there are 100 spam posts on a single thread that aren't handled by the community just downvoting them or a different type of system, we have bigger problems.

I think the issue is there's not often community consensus on what's spam in a given context.

For example, Ironstylus replies to a VU thread, and somebody replies to him saying "East Coast Servers where?" In this context, that person's reply should be considered spam, because it's not on topic. But because it is a pressing issue for a large portion of the community, it may also receive upvotes.

Yep. My issue is that the high-level direction seems to be to avoid this sort of conflict entirely instead of actually working on the system to accommodate it.

DaenJul 24, 20142 votes

In this context, that person's reply should be considered spam, because it's not on topic. But because it is a pressing issue for a large portion of the community, it may also receive upvotes.

Potentially, though, that can be solved with a different solution.

Novel idea, what if Riot...discusses this issue that players are so intent on understanding? (I know Riot has discussed the east coast servers in the past, but I'm just using it as a followup to your example)

If there is a very obvious and active thread about where the east coast servers are, there's very little reason to post about it anywhere else. If someone does so with the intention of spamming/trolling/sounding cute/whatever, it'll get downvoted into oblivion since so many people are already aware of the topic.

This sort of becomes a vicious cycle; Riot prefers not to discuss tough topics with the players because of backlash, but the players show such strong backlash because Riot prefers not to discuss tough topics with the players. See what I mean?

Now, I'm not saying Riot is not doing a good job. Far from it. It's just strange to me that we have this weird cycle of negative feedback when it could be reversed.

Hyrum GraffJul 24, 20141 votes

Novel idea, what if Riot...discusses this issue that players are so intent on understanding?

I think this is the (only) way to go. But at the same time, they have to walk the tightrope of a line between keeping people informed and setting expectations that Riot may be unable to meet.

Perhaps that's really the heart of the problem here - because you're right - hopefully things that are truly spam will get downvoted to oblivion and shouldn't derail the thread.

DaenJul 24, 20141 votes

they have to walk the tightrope of a line between keeping people informed and setting expectations that Riot may be unable to meet.

This is kind of a whole 'nother can of worms, but pops the top.

Your comment comes back around to a vicious cycle. The players expect a lot from Riot because there is a lot to expect from Riot. It's a trust issue.

I'll use Grinding Gear Games (the team behind Path of Exile) as an example. Obviously there are a lot of caviats (community size, type of game, complexity of interaction, etc.) but I still think it's at least moderately relevant. GGG constantly discusses pieces of their content such as their items, combat systems, high level design direction, and their future expansions.

Players trust the devs to know what's happening, and this trust is rewarded with information. For example, the trade system in Path of Exile has been hopelessly inadequate since the release of the game. The difference here is that GGG consistently discusses trade with the community to find where the biggest pain points are and to explain why fixing the system is so difficult. They manage to give detailed information while not sounding like they are making excuses because they give examples of the difficulties they face in communication with players.

The community expects the developers to talk about what they are doing, and because the developers are so open, the community understands that everything revealed is subject to change or removal. When was the last time Riot discussed replays openly with the community? How about Honor? I totally understand being unsure of what direction to take to solve a problem, but I think we as a community can handle that information and potentially help solve the issue.

Again: I think Riot is doing a great job. This is just outlining why it seems to me there's a perpetual undercurrent of negativity with anything that happens on the forums.

Hyrum GraffJul 24, 20142 votes

tl;dr transparency OP.

DaenJul 24, 20141 votes

Totes.

Meanwhile, the topic of the thread is the question of allowing Rioters to show appreciation for threads. xD

boozoJul 23, 20141 votes

My idea to show the stamp only to participants of a thread was a compromise of doing nothing of that kind in order to not attract trolls/riot pls reactions from people that see where the Rioters attention is directed, and the opposite approach of showing the people in the boards that their feedback is appreciated. What would be achieved by showing the stamp only to the thread creator, in contrast to all contributors of a discussion? Because I not only fail to see an advantage in that approach, but also think that this might lead to people posting their thoughts in an own thread instead of replying to an existant one, in order to receive Riot attention^TM, although this might be a bit far fetched.

There are some interesting points in your linked thread, especially a post-, not threadwise stamp, but I also understand the problems the Rioters point out. If you post a well thought-out comment in a thread that is stamped you don't have any idea whether this one post was actually read, or if the stamp was put on 4 hours and 20 replies later, when a Rioter had the opportunity to read the first couple pages but didn't even reach your post.