07.10.2022, 19:09
(Dieser Beitrag wurde zuletzt bearbeitet: 07.10.2022, 19:21 von Tallcat.
Bearbeitungsgrund: Typo
)
i certainly take your point on board - and can understand how users do not like that/feel it violates the spirit of the community. Given that several people have raised it, modification to the rules of posting/comments to prevent that happening on the LMD site itself could address that or would allow setters to address this in their posts. That being said:
1. I would not have issue with users downrating me because of this if it was something that I was specifically made aware of/was bought to my attention in a hidden comment on a puzzle by the user. This would give me that knowledge and could be addressed in future puzzles. Similarly, if this was something noted up front in rules/site guidelines.
2. In this case, the user seems to have sought out livestreams that were not directly linked in any way with LMD/linked in comments/posted by the author. Some of the puzzles had been 'presented' on the site for days or weeks before any (non-linked) solve elsewhere, before the user then made their rating - do I consider that situation 'malicious'? I would say yes I do as it would seem to say "if anyone anywhere solves this puzzle and i happen to see it, it's a bad puzzle". I would also add on top of that, this pattern of behavior was established before the recent proliferation of live solve channels.
I also want to emphasize that i have no issue with negative feedback (and, yes, to address the point up front, my LMD page shows that my puzzles are overall very well received and rated). Negative feedback helps me improve as a setter and if people have difficulties/issues with my puzzles, i would welcome them to comment to let me know where i can improve. But, as noted above, from my perspective, this does not seem to be the driving factor behind this pattern of behavior.
1. I would not have issue with users downrating me because of this if it was something that I was specifically made aware of/was bought to my attention in a hidden comment on a puzzle by the user. This would give me that knowledge and could be addressed in future puzzles. Similarly, if this was something noted up front in rules/site guidelines.
2. In this case, the user seems to have sought out livestreams that were not directly linked in any way with LMD/linked in comments/posted by the author. Some of the puzzles had been 'presented' on the site for days or weeks before any (non-linked) solve elsewhere, before the user then made their rating - do I consider that situation 'malicious'? I would say yes I do as it would seem to say "if anyone anywhere solves this puzzle and i happen to see it, it's a bad puzzle". I would also add on top of that, this pattern of behavior was established before the recent proliferation of live solve channels.
I also want to emphasize that i have no issue with negative feedback (and, yes, to address the point up front, my LMD page shows that my puzzles are overall very well received and rated). Negative feedback helps me improve as a setter and if people have difficulties/issues with my puzzles, i would welcome them to comment to let me know where i can improve. But, as noted above, from my perspective, this does not seem to be the driving factor behind this pattern of behavior.