=Discussion= So I've noticed a Loophole in one of my Rules

[Alzeid]

Yeah... But there's a loophole in the whole "Minimum Amount needed" thing.

 

But does that not depend on the card(s) in question? If someone makes a set full of errors' date=' there is plenty for users to comment upon; however, if someone makes a good set, there's not too much to say other than "good set" (and why perhaps?) along with addressing 1-2 minor flaws.

 

Maybe set your focus more on the obviously pointless statements like Griffin noted rather than trying to make a "minimum":

 

When a person's actions are unjustified and cause annoyance, unhappiness, ect in someone else, then punishing them is the correct course of action. Here's some posts that I've made up:

bad OCG good pic 8/9

i dont like it

spelling error

get anuver pic

change the def

Would any of those have really been helpful? No. They'd just annoy the TC by not being specific enough or giving any reasoning as to why something needs changing. Without reasoning or specifics, advice can be worthless and new members won't know which advice is trustworthy on partially subjective matters. For this reason, rubbish comments like the examples above are only harming the forums and have no justification. Repeatedly posting them should result in a warning and eventually a ban, the size of which should depend on the severity of the "spam" comments.

[Guest JoshIcy]

The cards in question are not the problem. The problem is with this rule there's a certain I guess... Limit? Before people can complain that it wasn't in context. And I don't want to hear complaints about "well you didn't say this and this" like I usually get. I want it to be something that's set in stone but at the same time contain no way to complain about it even if it appears suggestive.

 

[Message on OCG Correction. Usually upwards to 3-5 lines].

 

[Message on little constructive criticism about something].

 

[Rate X.X/10]

 

Such posts completely dodge this rule and still contain the same content and what have you that we're trying to stop, that ends up killing card design and lessening what a user can learn.

[Alzeid]

The cards in question are not the problem. The problem is with this rule there's a certain I guess... Limit? Before people can complain that it wasn't in context. And I don't want to hear complaints about "well you didn't say this and this" like I usually get. I want it to be something that's set in stone but at the same time contain no way to complain about it even if it appears suggestive.

 

[Message on OCG Correction. Usually upwards to 3-5 lines].

 

[Message on little constructive criticism about something].

 

[Rate X.X/10]

 

Such posts completely dodge this rule and still contain the same content and what have you that we're trying to stop' date=' that ends up killing card design and lessening what a user can learn.

[/quote']

 

Thus, you want a rule which is set and can not be argued against (no leeway or room for interpretation)? Personally, such a rule/guideline seems impossible to nail down when it's "artistic criticism" (opinions) that's being considered here.

 

Allow me to try and understand your thought process on this a bit better; do either of these posts by me count as "dodging" in your eyes? (Where my focus is the effect and playability of the card.)

 

Post 1 and Post 2

[Guest JoshIcy]

The cards in question are not the problem. The problem is with this rule there's a certain I guess... Limit? Before people can complain that it wasn't in context. And I don't want to hear complaints about "well you didn't say this and this" like I usually get. I want it to be something that's set in stone but at the same time contain no way to complain about it even if it appears suggestive.

 

[Message on OCG Correction. Usually upwards to 3-5 lines].

 

[Message on little constructive criticism about something].

 

[Rate X.X/10]

 

Such posts completely dodge this rule and still contain the same content and what have you that we're trying to stop' date=' that ends up killing card design and lessening what a user can learn.

[/quote']

 

Thus, you want a rule which is set and can not be argued against (no leeway or room for interpretation)? Personally, such a rule/guideline seems impossible to nail down when it's "artistic criticism" (opinions) that's being considered here.

 

Allow me to try and understand your thought process on this a bit better; do either of these posts by me count as "dodging" in your eyes? (Where my focus is the effect and playability of the card.)

 

Post 1 and Post 2

 

Your posts you gave me are not, as it promotes both creative (non-restriction) and proper gameplay while giving priority to the creator. In fact its better than most of mine when I feel in a good mood. So kudos on that.

[Master White]

Well, I do have one thing to ask. Can we still rate them because their card is awesome and give the a X/10 or something or does that go against this rule too?

[Guest JoshIcy]

Well' date=' I do have one thing to ask. Can we still rate them because their card is awesome and give the a X/10 or something or does that go against this rule too?

[/quote']

 

See now you bring in another factor into this rule itself.

 

Such posts are expected by Newbies (not noob/n00b) to each other as it promotes more activity and continual motivation that they need to stick around. However, such posts by senior members are looked own upon. But as it stands, I can't segregate even for the better due to complaints.

[wero-vasto]

... Bad english is bad.

 

I want to punish those who comment on just the language in a card' date=' and the bare minimum about the card itself. As Ive seen so many times.[/b']

If it's neccesary a punishment' date=' I suggest that START with the 20% of Warn. Then if the posts continue, even if it is not the same person, increase the warn.[/b']

 

 

That should be a better to resolve this... really, I agree with Icy, It's necessary a punishment, but the punishment cannot be different depending of the member, it should be the same for everyone. I mean for 1 everyone pays =/

 

As you can see, the first bold part is the problem, the second bold part is the solution. There's no other way to find a solution for this, even I that hate to see banned people <_< find this necessary!

[Master White]

Ok, thats all I needed to know, Icy.

[Alzeid]

Alright, so the description for RC is "Post cards here which are realistic and balanced."

 

Thus, "The focus of any comments should help promote and/or fix issues of realism (picture, OCG) and balance (effect, playability) with a greater emphasis on the balance of a given card."

 

"Dealing punishment as to what is 'good' or 'bad' should be left to the decision of the mods given that their position suggests a complete and valid understanding of the rules and can make appropriate decisions."

 

(Because, as I've said, it would be nearly impossible to make a "minimum" given that this is criticism we're talking about which, being opinionated as it is, can only be ruled by opinion. The best you could do is provide examples of "bad posts" and "good posts" to help users understand the general difference.)

[Morgan LeFlay]

I think that this rulle is completely stupid. I know when I submit cards I ask people to correct my OCG, so it's illegal for anyone to help me without posting 3+ lines about the cards?

 

Also what if the cards are good, but they have OCG errors? It's illegal for me to try to help them out? I know I'm not going go go on and on forever telling them how good I think their card is.

 

There's only so much critique you can give over a set of 1-3 cards, why should I have to write 2 paragraphs doing that just to include OCG help.

[Alzeid]

I think that this rulle is completely stupid. I know when I submit cards I ask people to correct my OCG' date=' so it's illegal for anyone to help me without posting 3+ lines about the cards?

 

Also what if the cards are good, but they have OCG errors? It's illegal for me to try to help them out? I know I'm not going go go on and on forever telling them how good I think their card is.

 

There's only so much critique you can give over a set of 1-3 cards, why should I have to write 2 paragraphs doing that just to include OCG help.

[/quote']

 

That is why I included the idea that punishment is up to the discretion of the mods. If a card is (obviously) balanced effect-wise and only OCG issues are evident, then there shouldn't be any issue IMO so long as you help fix it and not simply say "wrong OCG".

 

But then, as I've said before, if you're gonna read over the card's effect to fix OCG and neglect to help remedy any errors in logic/effect of the card (which you've read), then your post would be deemed pointless as it doesn't help promote the balance of the card.

 

Again, a definite rule is impossible to nail down, thus my suggestion for mod discretion.

[Morgan LeFlay]

Even if it isn't balanced effect-wise there's only so much you can do with one card talking about its other aspects. Obviously an OCG fix takes up more space than other things because you're posting the entire text of a card.

 

[spoiler=Example of a Bad Fix]Pretty good cards, I like the effect, bad OCG though 8/10

 

[spoiler=Example of a Better Fix]Pretty good cards, I like the effect. OCG is a little off, try this:

 

When this card is Normal Summoned, you can discard 1 card to destroy 1 monster on the field.

 

8/10

 

 

I personally would rather see the OCG fix than just saying "Bad ocg" as that pisses me off when people don't tell me what's wrong, and the second fix is 5 times better because they point out what's wrong, even if the OCG fix takes up more text space than the review itself.

 

How much can i really comment on the effect when it's a 1 card that says "When this card is played you can discard 1 to kill 1 monster."

 

Like I said in a previous post, it should be up to the creator if they don't want OCG fixes, or at least allow the users who appreciate it to opt in on allowing such fixes.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Here... Do me a favor then "Guybrush", review this card:

[ http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5284/43952j.jpg ]

 

Lets see what you come up with. (Anyone else reviewing it beside's Alzeid and Guybrush will have their posts deleted). And yes there's a point to it.

[Guest Delinquent Girl NiAtSoFi]

"Treat others the way you want to be treated' date='"

[/quote']

 

I'll address the full post here, but only quoting a bit.

I murder someone.

Anyone in that situation would want to be treated with such sympathy that they were let off.

Doing that would be stupid.

 

When a person's actions are unjustified and cause annoyance, unhappiness, ect in someone else, then punishing them is the correct course of action. Here's some posts that I've made up:

bad OCG good pic 8/9

i dont like it

spelling error

get anuver pic

change the def

Would any of those have really been helpful? No. They'd just annoy the TC by not being specific enough or giving any reasoning as to why something needs changing. Without reasoning or specifics, advice can be worthless and new members won't know which advice is trustworthy on partially subjective matters. For this reason, rubbish comments like the examples above are only harming the forums and have no justification. Repeatedly posting them should result in a warning and eventually a ban, the size of which should depend on the severity of the "spam" comments.

 

I see these a lot. They're pointless. Why rate on trivial crap like grammar and pics? THIS IS THE REALISTIC CARDS SECTION! We should rate based on playability/splashability with pre-existing cards. Consider the following when judging: Can I run this in a competitive deck? Will it slow down my deck, or make it faster? etc.

[Alzeid]

For the most part Threepwood, I agree with you. If someone is willing to fix the OCG of the card, that is still something positive in my mind; however, I'm also trying to incorporate Icy's idea that more emphasis needs to be placed on the effect and balance of the card which, I believe, is more important than the card's exact wording.

 

-_- It's difficult, I know.

 

Review:

 

"How (the hell) could a spell card that increases LP increase the ATK strength of a card?" Thus, the second line is pointless (unless there's a card out there I don't know about). As for the first; Quick-play +1000LP with no cost? There needs to be some kind of cost (which is a bit too similar to Emergency Provisions already?) if it's to be balanced (what, idk. It's pointless given EP exists imo.) OCG is fine as far as I know and care. :3

 

EDIT:

@Below: Ah, if that's the case, then it makes more sense. (Beh, some logic passes over me.) It would still require some kind of cost if it's to be balanced though. -_-

[Morgan LeFlay]

It's an interesting card, and I'm not quite sure what exactly is intended to do. If I understand what you were saying correctly, I'd word it something like this:

 

Gain 1000 Life Points. If the activation and resolution of this card would cause the ATK of a face-up monster to increase, gain 2000 Life Points instead.

 

If that is what you were thinking of (since the card doesn't change the ATK of a monster by itself), then it'd be worse than say, Poison of the Old Man outside of the right deck. The only place it might be useful would be decks that use cards such as Magical marionette or Man Beast of Ares, provided that the rulings considered your card to cause the ATK change.

 

A bit situational even then, though I suppose in the right theme it could have its uses. I'll give it a 6/10, like the pic too.

 

In that example, I had to clarify the OCG just to consider at what the card even does, and interpret rulings based on it, so yes my explanation was longer. It isn't going to be possible with all cards though without blabbering on about nothing or trying to find pointless combos.

 

I still say the users should either have to specify that OCG fixes aren't allowed, or allow them to opt in comments about OCG.

[Guest JoshIcy]

It's an interesting card' date=' and I'm not quite sure what exactly is intended to do. If I understand what you were saying correctly, I'd word it something like this:

 

Gain 1000 Life Points. If the activation and resolution of this card would cause the ATK of a face-up monster to increase, gain 2000 Life Points instead.

 

If that is what you were thinking of (since the card doesn't change the ATK of a monster by itself), then it'd be worse than say, Poison of the Old Man outside of the right deck. The only place it might be useful would be decks that use cards such as Magical marionette or Man Beast of Ares, provided that the rulings considered your card to cause the ATK change.

 

A bit situational even then, though I suppose in the right theme it could have its uses. I'll give it a 6/10, like the pic too.[/quote']

 

In that example, I had to clarify the OCG just to consider at what the card even does, and interpret rulings based on it, so yes my explanation was longer. It isn't going to be possible with all cards though without blabbering on about nothing or trying to find pointless combos.

 

I still say the users should either have to specify that OCG fixes aren't allowed, or allow them to opt in comments about OCG.

 

More more/Different different >_< You're stating... Gyah. It's hard to explain without drawing a picture and if I do that, what I ask of you comes too clear which defeats the purpose of learning it.

 

And no, stating that would require more work and menial tasks on everyones part. Segregating people far more than you could due to seniority.

[Morgan LeFlay]

Okay I found an example for you, then

 

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/thread-196139.html

 

What would you consider an acceptable fix for this card? Keep in mind that this is a new member who has asked how his OCG was, but under your rules I wouldn't be allowed to help him.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Okay I found an example for you' date=' then

 

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/thread-196139.html

 

What would you consider an acceptable fix for this card? Keep in mind that this is a new member who has asked how his OCG was, but under your rules I wouldn't be allowed to help him.

[/quote']

 

I'll give you what I think would be the acceptable post to it (or close to it but it doesnt have to be as long).

 

You wording it kind of funny like, but I gotta give credit; the image does give a slight otherworldly/trippy vibe to it so the RFP thing does look fine and matches it entirely.

 

Though, I believe you meant to say something like. "When this card is activated, return to play as many Removed from Play Dragon-Type monsters as you can. Dragon-Type Monsters cannot be removed from play. " or somewhere along those lines.

 

It's creative and I can see where you wanted this to go. Great effort and I sincerely hope to see more from you. Even if your wording is off, it wasn't that hard to interpret. Keep on ^^

 

Noticed how most of it focused on the idea behind the card even within the minor OCG segment, while keeping the integrity of the idea intact? That's what I expect and what this rule would enforce.

[Alzeid]

Okay I found an example for you' date=' then

 

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/thread-196139.html

 

What would you consider an acceptable fix for this card? Keep in mind that this is a new member who has asked how his OCG was, but under your rules I wouldn't be allowed to help him.

[/quote']

 

If I may be literal, he asked for "Comments and Criticism", not OCG fixes (of course, I don't think this user is aware of the term).

 

The card effect would be better suited saying "When a Dragon-Type monster is removed from the field' date=' you can Special Summon it (at the End Phase or w/e)." This thus only allows for newly added Dragons to be brought back and not a whole Dimension full of them.[/quote']

 

(Note, I only care for the card effect personally and in fixing the effect, I've fixed the majority of the OCG.)

[Guest JoshIcy]

Mandatory Bump, since someone buried this topic.

[Alzeid]

*hide shovel* *whistle*

 

@Icy: Since Guybrush has yet to reply; might I ask your opinion on my suggestion posted here?

[Guest JoshIcy]

@Icy: Since Guybrush has yet to reply; might I ask your opinion on my suggestion posted here?

 

It's called Custom Cards for a reason, therefore creativity takes a priority too. As for the second part, I've gotten so much complaints about that it's caused me to explode irl. The stupidity of people complaining about it just infuriates me...

[Alzeid]

@Icy: Since Guybrush has yet to reply; might I ask your opinion on my suggestion posted here?

 

It's called Custom Cards for a reason' date=' therefore creativity takes a priority too. As for the second part, I've gotten so much complaints about that it's caused me to explode irl. The stupidity of people complaining about it just infuriates me...

[/quote']

 

Ai, but this thread was apparently made for serious, balanced cards and thus that should be the thread's primary focus: to make the cards serious and balanced. Every card here is "custom" and as such the whole creativity thing applies everywhere.

 

Ah, so that's why you want a "definite" rule. -_- Sorry, given the circumstances (and not wanting to say "you must comment on the effect/balance/whatwillyou"), that's the best solution I got in terms of dealing punishment. >_<

[Guest JoshIcy]

@Icy: Since Guybrush has yet to reply; might I ask your opinion on my suggestion posted here?

 

It's called Custom Cards for a reason' date=' therefore creativity takes a priority too. As for the second part, I've gotten so much complaints about that it's caused me to explode irl. The stupidity of people complaining about it just infuriates me...

[/quote']

 

Ai, but this thread was apparently made for serious, balanced cards and thus that should be the thread's primary focus: to make the cards serious and balanced. Every card here is "custom" and as such the whole creativity thing applies everywhere.

 

Ah, so that's why you want a "definite" rule. -_- Sorry, given the circumstances (and not wanting to say "you must comment on the effect/balance/whatwillyou"), that's the best solution I got in terms of dealing punishment. >_<

 

Blaaaah!!! *bangs head on wall*