Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

  • No flaming or derogatory remarks, directly or through insinuation.
  • No discussion, sharing or referencing illegal software such as hacks, keygen, cracks and pirated software.
  • No offensive contents, including but not limited to, racism, gore or pornography.
  • No excessive spam/meme, i.e. copious one liners in a short period of time, typing with all caps or posting meme responses (text/image).
  • No trolling, including but not limited to, flame incitation, user provocation or false information distribution.
  • No link spamming or signature advertisements for content not specific to Dota 2.
  • No Dota 2 key requests, sell, trade etc.
  • You may not create multiple accounts for any purpose, including ban evasion, unless expressly permitted by a moderator.

  • Please search before posting. One thread per issue. Do not create another thread if there is an existing one already.
  • Before posting anything, make sure you check out all sticky threads (e.g., this). Do not create new threads about closed ones.
  • It is extremely important that you post in correct forum section.

  • Balance discussion only in Misc.
  • All art related (such as hero model) feedbacks go to Art Feedback Forum.
  • All matchmaking feedback should go here: Matchmaking Feedback
  • All report/low priority issues should go here: Commend/Report/Ban Feedback
  • No specific workshop item feedback. These should go to workshop page of that item.
  • When posting in non-bugs section (such as this), use [Bugs], [Discussion] or [Suggestion] prefix in your thread name.



In case you object some action by a moderator, please contact him directly through PM and explain your concerns politely. If you are still unable to resolve the issue, contact an administrator. Do not drag these issues in public.



All rules are meant to augment common sense, please use them when not conflicted with aforementioned policies.
See more
See less

Communication Suggests from a Veteran DotA Player

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So5low
    replied
    Honestly anything would be better than the current system, I feel.But I think that OPs idea is the way to go.Muting people makes them even more angry especially when theres no reason and since the reports r not monitored almost everybody gets muted just cuz.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scrub-Zero
    replied
    @Popinjay.Poison

    I am not too concerned with the actual "reward" of an item. I myself suggested that items should be given out for completing the tutorial some time ago. I don't expect people to necessarily 'really care' about improving the quality of life as it may in DOTA 2. The current upset with the mute system is, in my opinion, more because of how easy it is to report persons rather than the actual punishment -- Though the punishment existing certainly contributes to people being more vocal about it. I sincerely believe the Reports should be scrapped all-together if they are as rampart as they are; but, that is a subject that is not allowed to have threads created for. If this system works and lowers the overall toxicity? Hell yeah, I am all for that!

    I can't help but be pessimistic of an entirely new system especially when one considers that the current one is a clusterfuck because it is a system that can easily be abused. I admit that this commendation system, from what I interpret on paper, would result in a positive reinforcement: a free item (as opposed to getting muted) -- but I simply just can't jump ship and say: "Yeah, sure, this would work." I don't think it would work too much to enforce bettering the truly toxic players (flamers, griefers, etc).

    This is a bit of a stretch, but, Team Fortress 2 is perhaps the best example. Let me preface this by saying toxicity wasn't the issue in that game as it is in DOTA 2. Bear with me.

    In TF2 they first introduced new weapons for the medic and the idea was they would tie it to achievements -- another new introduction for TF2 (I think.) Well, guess what I did? I went on an achievement server. What is an achievement server? It is exactly as it sounds but taken to the extreme: A server whose sole purpose was for people to "farm" the necessary achievements. The servers themselves had custom maps designed around getting the achievement as fast as possible. I went in, got my achievements pretty quickly and got my medic unlocks. The entire concept of "achieving" things was completely usurped and, honestly, I kinda felt a little bit guilty after seeing people legitimately unlock the achievement. By guilty I mean I did the same shit with the other classes really -- They were new weapons to a hardcore TF2 player. Now when I play the game, there is so much new shit I have no clue what the hell is going on!

    Again, the two situations are different, but, the important part is to understand the lengths that people will go to. We've seen the same thing with the current system: "Well Played!" spam/F2P's incredible testing/People throwing games/The influx of mute threads to the point of "General Feedback" being removed...then they add the community forum? Holy crap! The ability of players to unite is there but there isn't a solid medium, not yet.

    Another 'personal' solution of mine would be a tribunal pyramid-scheme. You start at the top with Valve. Valve employees each get two invites and they give them to whom they think can honestly represent a community-driven system whose purpose is to make the world of DOTA 2 a "better place" -- More importantly, though, people who understand the line between offender and just, an online gamer in a competitive environment. Those players then in turn get their own invites to send to other players -- However, set a time limit before allowing the next "tier" of players in. One to two weeks, something to ensure that the players that are currently 'in' do not abuse it. They can keep the report and commendation system but sever the ties to actual punishment. This would be a very time-consuming system, but, I think the end result would be worth it -- Though valve seems very much set on their current solution. I myself have had nothing but way better games too, so it's hard for me to argue but I do so because I'm just that cool.

    Leave a comment:


  • Popinjay.Poison
    replied
    I like the idea, although, as Scrub-Zero has pointed out, the way you proposed it would very likely just result in everybody commending everbody after each game. I think a possible way to prevent this is to only be able to commend ONE player of each team, similar to an MVP award. This way, you would commend e.g. the support who helped you so well during the laning phase, the guy who has been so helpful and friendly all game long etc. instead of mindlessly commending everyone. To prevent mates from constantly commending each other, I suggest you would only be able to commend your mate every 4 games you play with him (seeing that you have 4 team-mates, the amount of commendations would then statistically be the same as if you had played games solo). You would then neither be at an advantage nor at a disadvantage if you play with friends.

    PS: At no point did Scrub-Zero ridicule you or "call you names", he merely pointed out the flaws he sees in your system.

    @Scrub-Zero: You admitted that people would work together if this system was implemented, but for the wrong reasons. My question is: Why should we care? We are not trying to make this world a better place or to change people for the better, all we are trying to achieve is more enjoyable games with better cooperation and less flaming. If this systems can make this happen, I do not really care much about WHY people are working together.

    Leave a comment:


  • Actionbastard
    replied
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    I'm not going to respond to much of what this guy said because he spent more time in ridicule (ad hominem attack) than actually making valid points.
    I love the part where he doesn't ONCE ridicule you in any way, then you proceed to insult him because he disagreed with you and completely tore apart your flawed system. Well played Scrub-Zero, I agree with what you said and you did it in a professional matter unlike the the OP who attacks anyone who doesn't like his idea.

    PS your idea is terrible and very abusable kaine, try again, thanks.
    Last edited by Actionbastard; 07-03-2013, 12:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scrub-Zero
    replied
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    I'm not going to respond to much of what this guy(Me, Scrub-Zero) said because he spent more time in ridicule (ad hominem attack) than actually making valid points.
    ...

    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    Just throwing "what ifs" out there because I honestly don't believe this "scrub-zero" guy stopped to think about this before he posted his comments.
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    "Scrub-Zero" obviously spent little-to-no time thinking about this, because he limited the options of the concept to only what I listed in the initial post.
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    because everyone seems to only want to complain, rather than offer another solution, which is exactly what we have just seen from "Scrub-Zero".
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    Just as "Scrub-Zero's" motivation to write his post was to glorify himself and make himself seem more intelligent
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    I believe people like "Scrub-Zero" are part of the problem that Valve is ignoring right now
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    As a final note, I would like to translate that sentence for those of you who didn't understand what he (Scrub-Zero) just said. He just said that he's smart, and you're dumb. You're so stupid and emotional, you would just accept anything. Scrub-Zero thinks you're too dumb to see what would work and what wouldn't. He's going to object to this paragraph, but that is exactly what he just implied by what he said, and if you guys aren't offended by this, you ought to be.


    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    I'm not going to respond to much of what this guy(Me, Scrub-Zero) said because he spent more time in ridicule (ad hominem attack) than actually making valid points.


    Originally posted by Scrub-Zero View Post
    Do not take this the wrong way, I do my best to genuinely assist any proposed solution
    Originally posted by Scrub-Zero View Post
    I understand your good intent but I can only see it in the negative light and I will judge it accordingly, I apologize.
    Originally posted by Scrub-Zero View Post
    The goal is noble but the proposed means are flawed in my book.
    Originally posted by Scrub-Zero View Post
    I hope this response helps your cause (and) the developers as well
    Originally posted by Scrub-Zero View Post
    I'm not interested in getting too into the details because, quite frankly, I have seen better proposed solutions but I will do my best to respond to any thought-out system with the sole purpose of helping the original poster.

    Sorry, dude.

    Leave a comment:


  • max1c
    replied
    Ok and after reading your last post now I'm confident that you are just stupid as a bonus to a shit idea.

    EDIT: @CvP: Just so you know there are A LOT of things that they can do stop abuse in current system. But guess what, it's been 2 months now? And basically no improvements have been done. What is the point of making a whole NEW system and then trying to improve it when according to Valve they already have one that's working perfectly...
    Last edited by max1c; 07-03-2013, 06:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kainestolkyn
    replied
    Originally posted by Scrub-Zero View Post
    Do not take this the wrong way, I do my best to genuinely assist any proposed solution-- but I think the solution you have posed is ill-fit for the current state of the game. I am not saying the current mute system is perfect either. If I had to choose between the two I would favor the mute system over your proposed one.
    I'm not going to respond to much of what this guy said because he spent more time in ridicule (ad hominem attack) than actually making valid points.

    Let's say a commend can only happen at the end of a successful game (i.e. no one drops and the game completes). And let's say you limited it to where only ONE PERSON COULD COMMEND YOU PER GAME. Just throwing "what ifs" out there because I honestly don't believe this "scrub-zero" guy stopped to think about this before he posted his comments. If this were the case, that means Valve could put out a 100 commends to get an item bonus. That would mean a little over one game per day (provided you got commended at all).
    Now, let's say this person was a total jerk in game, calling names (like "scrub-zero" did a lot of in his post), and ridiculing other players. NO ONE... will commend this guy, except his friends. And that means, in order to get his commendations, he would have to have 100 friends, and have to play with each of his 100 friends over the course of three months. (Assuming all his friends want to commend him.) This is already highly unlikely, and that rare instance is not what Valve is concentrating on. They are concentrating on the average player, which doesn't have 100 friends, and if they do, they don't play with them often at all (which means they don't really know them enough to warrant just commending another player). (or up it to 150, or 200)
    Valve could even limit the amount of times you can commend other players to 5 per day. There's all sorts of options to answer these complaints from "Scrub-Zero."

    "Scrub-Zero" obviously spent little-to-no time thinking about this, because he limited the options of the concept to only what I listed in the initial post. He also claims that my post assumes the best in people, when in fact its the opposite because it assumes everyone is selfish and self-serving, and this provides a system that will use that self-serving motivation to make a friendlier community. For example, Valve already does this. Why doesn't Valve just rely on donations alone? Why do they offer items for sale? Because people have a selfish motivation, and are more likely to hand over money when they GET SOMETHING IN RETURN! Just as "Scrub-Zero's" motivation to write his post was to glorify himself and make himself seem more intelligent (providing no real suggestions or solutions to help the community), thus I sought to use that same selfish motivation in the community to solve the problem, just as Valve already does.

    And the problem we have with what's happening on the forums, and THE REASON VALVE IS NOT LISTENING TO US, is because everyone seems to only want to complain, rather than offer another solution, which is exactly what we have just seen from "Scrub-Zero". I believe people like "Scrub-Zero" are part of the problem that Valve is ignoring right now, why they're not hearing us, and though he says he's trying to help, his post proves otherwise.

    Originally posted by Scrub-Zero View Post
    People hate this system, they would support anything so long as the current mute system gets abolished.
    As a final note, I would like to translate that sentence for those of you who didn't understand what he just said. He just said that he's smart, and you're dumb. You're so stupid and emotional, you would just accept anything. Scrub-Zero thinks you're too dumb to see what would work and what wouldn't. He's going to object to this paragraph, but that is exactly what he just implied by what he said, and if you guys aren't offended by this, you ought to be.
    We don't need this kind of negative input to solve this problem because it's not logical, and it just wastes everyone's time.

    For everyone else, thank you for your continued support and suggestions on improvement of this system, and I hope Valve will take this into serious consideration. It would be great that they start rewarding the good players for good behavior.

    Leave a comment:


  • max1c
    replied
    Nope. Terrible abusable idea. We already have people just farming wins by one person feeding another person on opposing team. This can only end up in similar behavior...

    Leave a comment:


  • kainestolkyn
    replied
    Originally posted by CvP View Post
    There are so many things you can do to prevent abuse. For starters, just replace report with commends in current report system. You only get a commend (current mute ban) if you get commended (current com report) x number of times (in y number of games) during z duration.

    +1 to op
    That's exactly what I was thinking when I read his response. I just wanted to see what other people said first before I responded, but I don't need to respond now. You just refuted everything he said.
    Well said, and very good ideas for abuse prevention. Thanks for your continued support.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scrub-Zero
    replied
    Do not take this the wrong way, I do my best to genuinely assist any proposed solution-- but I think the solution you have posed is ill-fit for the current state of the game. I am not saying the current mute system is perfect either. If I had to choose between the two I would favor the mute system over your proposed one.

    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    I made a post about this on the DotA 2 Steam forums, and I got a large amount of positive feedback and suggestions to post this idea here, so hopefully the Valve developers might see this.
    We are literally at the point that any 'sensible' or wordy suggestion is going to get a humongous positive response simply because it is not the current system. People hate this system, they would support anything so long as the current mute system gets abolished. That being said, I am not trying to be completely dismissive but simply pointing out that people will swing that way with their personal opinions, which they have every right to. Valve cannot be quick to jump the gun on a solution -- They are already changing up the algorithms for the current mute-system, whatever the hell that means.


    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    I think there has a been a departure from your initial idea of "commending" other players. It's a good start, but I think you guys stopped short in developing it. Interesting that I have watched some players try to be overly nice, giving, and helpful, and then plead with other players to commend them, just to increase their commendation stats. However, over the last year, I've watched the decline, and now no one really cares about commendations anymore. Why not? Because there's no incentive to care about them.
    I disagree with this. I do not think Valve stopped short of developing it as much as they did stop short of another disaster. I can not track who or what I got commended for and by whom unless I literally check after every game but I know for sure that people simply threw out commends to other players for being good at the game or for racking up a very one-sided victory. This is wrong. Completely overrunning your opponents due to a considerable skill gap does not translate to everyone on your team having qualities such as: "Forgiveness, Friendly, Leading, or Teaching." Here is what I noticed from commends every single time we win or the enemy team really wins.

    "Commend plz" What? Fuck that. People are lobbying for commends(That are undeserved, mind you) now, what is going to happen when we throw in incentive? It will be abused, simply put. I understand the proposed "limitations" but the instant it becomes widespread word that: "Getting so many commends = special item." You are going to have a shitstorm on your hands. Commends will just be an obvious thing to do after any match, really. Especially if you change up the hud to make it easier. I commend you, you commend me. Doesn't matter that we are strangers and that neither of us really said anything all game. We both understand how the system rewards based upon a number of commends so, why not?



    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    What you need is player commendations to be focused on in more detail with incentives for each individual player to obtain a high rating of commendations from other players. There are TONS of new items coming into the game, and I personally enjoy seeing all the varieties, so think about this scenario for a moment:
    What if once every 3 months (each quarter) you offered a LIMITED EDITION item (i.e., it can only be achieved via commendations) to all players that achieve a required number of commendations during that 90-day period? You would see not only a rise in the amount of people trying to work together to get commendation points, but also an increase in overall game play hours online.
    I mean, you really sell it yourself here.

    "What you need is player commendations to be focused on in more detail with incentives for each individual player to obtain a high rating of commendations from other players. "
    "You would see not only a rise in the amount of people trying to work together to get commendation points, but also an increase in overall game play hours online."

    Yes, exactly. There would be no down-side to commending anyone you could for whatever reason because as long as you are getting commends and so are they, you are both getting "rewarded" regardless of your actual behavior/efforts. So yes, people would "work together" to get commendations and such but for all the wrong reasons. Would people play more? I suppose so, is it worth derailing the community? I think not.




    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    Only allow one commendation to be given out to each of the other 9 players in the game, and make it so that a player can only commend another player once during the 3-month period. (This prevents friends/clans from abusing the system -- the limitation can be reset each quarter.)
    On the profile, you can continue to list the TOTAL amount of commendations, but have a number above it that has a total number of commendations for the current quarter, so they can see how many commendations they need to achieve the special item reward.
    This is ridiculous. I understand your good intent but I can only see it in the negative light and I will judge it accordingly, I apologize. "Only allow one commendation to each of the other 9 players" or..."Just fucking commend everyone in every single game you play cause we get items for it." Listing the "commendations" needed is just as ridiculous. You should not keep score of something that should be preserved and respected like commendations in this regard. You are literally proposing a carrot-on-the-stick approach with Commendations, how the hell do you think people are going to respond to that? The main HUD featuring a countdown of how many "Commends you gotta score!" to get that special item? People are gonna lobby for commends! It would be great if they indeed truly tried to be better players but it's been done before in the past of people simply throwing out commends willy-nilly and that was back when they were "useless." People are begging for commends now, I still see it.


    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    So now what you're doing, instead of banning people and creating resentment, you're REWARDING those who are being friendly and cooperative to one another, which will lighten the image of your company, and they will make much more effort on their own to try to help each other. Doesn't that make more sense? Positive reinforcement goes a long way.
    This is very assuming that the best qualities of the community shines through just like my post assumes the worst. I'm not going to fault you necessarily, even though I disagree completely, because I am currently doing the exact same thing but for the opposite "side." The worst case scenario.

    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    Also, another important note, you need to make it EASIER to commend other players. For example, at the end of the game, add in four small buttons next to each players name for commendations. They will only be able to select one of the four, for each player in the game, assuming they want to commend another player. I would advise adding in a small animation along side it to remind players at the end of the game to commend their teammates. (Often, most players forget about it at the end of a game, and an animated reminder will help them remember who was friendly, or who was a great support that game.)
    I understand my post is pretty much hammering down the nail at this point but, again; When you make the commendation distribution easier and even throw in changes to the hud itself and a scoreboard...you are encouraging a system to be abused. Reminding people to commend? Come on, really? I don't need to touch this bit any more.



    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    One person on the Steam forums brought up a point about players abusing the system by "trading commendations," but I need to remind everyone that once you put a limit cap of one commendation to each unique player per quarter... there IS NO ABUSING THE SYSTEM. That's what makes this great. The goal is not to try and monitor who gets the unique item and who doesn't... the goal is to get the community to try and be more friendly to each other.
    For example, let's say person A was mean to person B throughout the game. Person A proposes "trading" with person B. Person B already resents person A, so either B will refuse to trade with A, or B will tell A he will trade with him, but then not do it, which leaves B with the commendation he deserves, and A is left with nothing. The system monitors itself.
    The goal is noble but the proposed means are flawed in my book. I assume when you say "Limit cap of one commendation to each unique player..." I assume you mean I can't commend the same person twice. Fair enough. That does absolutely nothing in the solo to low-party queue, however. When word goes around that you should simply commend eachother stranger-to-stranger, unique-player to unique-player then it pretty much is thrown out the window entirely. By the way, that "word of mouth" spreads pretty fast when the hud itself, and in-game messages are encouraging you to do so. Is that what we truly want? I say no.

    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    As of right now, we have numerous complaints from a lot of players I talk to that say this muting system is being abused, and I have to agree. I've been reported for things, like when a person picks bs after we already have pa AND razor... and I tell him that's a foolish pick because we already have two hard carries. The muting system ends up being broken because children who play this game will throw tantrums because they don't like to be told they did something wrong, and they jeer because they can abuse the system, and for veteran players like me, it ruins everything to point that I have considered resigning DotA 2.
    But I have known Valve to be very community-orientated, and I wanted to propose this concept and see what they decide to do. Again, I got a great deal of positive feedback on this system I'm proposing (again, I did not receive one negative comment on the Steam forums; all players really liked this idea), and there are numerous ways this could be implemented, and I would even be willing to help write up a few systems concepts for Valve if they wanted me to do so; then you could pick what you like and alter it how you need to.
    Yes, the mute system is being abused so long as whether or not you are muted is directly related to reports -- provided it is still automated (Which I assume it is due to the size of the game.) Know what else got abused back in the hay-day? Commendations. It did not shine through as much because there was nothing "Good" about it. You just had it in your profile, it became more of a personal stat. Any automated system wherein the input is the mass of players is prone to abuse in nature. The community has proven it is incapable of handling themselves or the decisions with valve. It is one thing to disagree but when the "General Feedback" became "Tales from the Crypt: Mute edition" -- Well, you pretty much got the worst of the worst. Valve stamped their foot and cleaned up the forums and the very first thing on the same day as the changes the general response from a good amount of threads is: "Valve is backtracking"/"Guess we migrate all these mute threads to Misc, huh?" I understand people obviously having distaste for the system but that is not how progress is made unless you are REALLY cutting into their profits. Good luck with that, I think we tried the same thing with l4d2 and that didn't work out so well.




    The above response does not even touch on what I believe to be the most critical flaw in your proposed solution: The purpose of reports. They could take away the mute system (A system which I believe they "Back-up" based upon their blog posts) but what do you do for reports? Send 'em to LPQ again? LPQ was shitty but, as long as you were getting games it didn't really matter -- Most of the time you were just grouped up with other douchebags and from the few times I've been there (From queuing with "toxic" friends) it just...didn't do much? It was like willingly queuing up for a terrible experience and everyone there was vocal and hated it. I'm really not surprised at the reasoning for a mute system after seeing that for myself but I do not know the timeline of events cause I took a bit of a hiatus with DOTA 2. I look at your solution and simply see us swapping knives.

    I hope this response helps your cause the developers as well, provided they read this stuff. You may count this as an opposed response, as that is what it is. I'm not interested in getting too into the details because, quite frankly, I have seen better proposed solutions but I will do my best to respond to any thought-out system with the sole purpose of helping the original poster.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaarnou
    replied
    Brilliant idea.

    It has been proven in hundreds of social experiments that positive reinforcement is far superior to punishment to modify behavior.
    Unfortunately Valve is stuck in this route.
    This is probably because their corporate culture functions pretty much the same as the mute system.

    Lucky for us, in the modern age where companies ignore their clients their death is guaranteed.

    Leave a comment:


  • CvP
    replied
    There are so many things you can do to prevent abuse. For starters, just replace report with commends in current report system. You only get a commend (current mute ban) if you get commended (current com report) x number of times (in y number of games) during z duration.

    +1 to op

    Leave a comment:


  • CvP
    replied
    Originally posted by CamelLord View Post
    Nice to see you both read my post thoroughly. I did NOT say that you could commend the same person twice in a quarter, I fully understood everything you posted, what I said was that if you're a player that has, say, 100 friends who play DotA 2, then you can get each of them to play with you at some point, and trade commends, and even though you've all only given each unique person 1 commend, you all now have 100 commends. As I said quite clearly, this system would merely reward the players with the largest friend lists, without necessarily engendering any good behaviour.
    You cant commend friends or past-friends or if you become friends, past commends are removed.

    You can not commend until you have played 10 mm games.
    You can not commend someone outside of game.
    etc.
    etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • CamelLord
    replied
    Originally posted by kainestolkyn View Post
    I read over the person's concerns above you, and you're right, I addressed his concerns in the original post with the section on limitations. I think he read it, but he didn't comprehend it. It sounds like he was quick to write a complaint, rather than analyze the information. The first two sentences you wrote refuted his entire post.
    Thank you for your support of this idea. I agree with you, I hope they will work on this.
    Nice to see you both read my post thoroughly. I did NOT say that you could commend the same person twice in a quarter, I fully understood everything you posted, what I said was that if you're a player that has, say, 100 friends who play DotA 2, then you can get each of them to play with you at some point, and trade commends, and even though you've all only given each unique person 1 commend, you all now have 100 commends. As I said quite clearly, this system would merely reward the players with the largest friend lists, without necessarily engendering any good behaviour.

    Leave a comment:


  • kainestolkyn
    replied
    Originally posted by boody View Post
    I totally agree, and to the person above me, he said that you won't be able to commend the same person twice in a quarter! if you want to abuse it 4 times then go ahead, not even considered abuse. I think this is a great idea and they should work on it.
    I read over the person's concerns above you, and you're right, I addressed his concerns in the original post with the section on limitations. I think he read it, but he didn't comprehend it. It sounds like he was quick to write a complaint, rather than analyze the information. The first two sentences you wrote refuted his entire post.
    Thank you for your support of this idea. I agree with you, I hope they will work on this.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X