LOCK

[Guest Welche]

I'm not asking for support. I'm asking for a rule to be implemented to make the section better.

[Guest Icyblue]

So simply because I do not post in RC means that the section no longer deserves to be improved?

 

No it means you must do, before you speak.

[Guest Welche]

I think saying that I have to spend time in RC in the condition it is in is just cruel.

[Sander]

So what you're saying Icy, is that a persons opinion who wishes to help RC does not matter if they have not posted in RC?

 

But really, this wouldn't be practical in RC, at all, or in the other CC sections. As long as there are more and more people joining the forum, the opinion of what's constructive and what's not changes. So what might seem constructive to some person might not be constructive at all in the eyes of another person. That alone makes the Advanced Clause in RC impossible.

[Guest Icyblue]

So what you're saying Icy, is that a persons opinion who wishes to help RC does not matter if they have not posted in RC?

 

As Koko would put it: "Ideally." That doesnt mean I won't listen, a suggestion is a suggestion, but it means their words won't carry weight. Why, should a person listen to another person about something when they have no immediate proof that they even know what they're talking about? Without Welche's activity, I can't even know if he's been there recently. Examples in the eyes of someone who doesn't is just observation, examples in the eyes of someone who does is knowledge.

 

EDIT: Also, I make anyone who suggests something on this scale. Lead the suggestion into activity. Their words and activity have to carry weight to do that, or they cannot be trusted to perform. So as impractical as this is, if it gets implemented or more formally discussed or not, Welche also has to prove that he is capable of doing said acts before implementation, without being told at that. His idea, his bond, his responsibility.

[bury the year]

Do a trial run? That was what we did in RP, and theory gets trumped by practice. If people want in-depth criticism, they can post a tag in the title ([CONCRIT] or something like that), and people who don't give a certain degree of thoughtfulness to their post can be reported to a mod like with any other violation and should be dealt with as such. Just an objective suggestion: I don't care if this gets shot down, but I'd like to see how a system like this'd work out elsewhere.

[Guest Icyblue]

Do a trial run? That was what we did in RP, and theory gets trumped by practice. If people want in-depth criticism, they can post a tag in the title ([CONCRIT] or something like that), and people who don't give a certain degree of thoughtfulness to their post can be reported to a mod like with any other violation and should be dealt with as such. Just an objective suggestion: I don't care if this gets shot down, but I'd like to see how a system like this'd work out elsewhere.

 

See... I don't mind people asking for this, in fact I thoroughly enjoy it. But a rule like this... well, there's a certain member who I'd have to literally remove from the board in order for it to work on the scale I'd want because their posts regardless of section do not fit in this criteria (mind you if I'm to test this, it won't be a tag system it'd be the ENTIRETY OF REALISTIC CARDS AT ONCE). Though, if a Super Moderator is willing to put up with this dilemma and handle it on their own for the duration of the test (my standard is 2 weeks + a fluctuating variable based on success), and a few senior BUT ACTIVE Realistic Card and/or Written Cards users PM me their approval. I will implement it as early as tomorrow morning Hawaii-time.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

I think as the queen of not posting sheet in Realistic Cards I am duty bound to weigh my thoughts on this.

 

I always figured that with Custom Cards having 4 whole sections all to itself (Realistic, Pop Culture, Any Other, Written) doing something like creating an Advanced Clause would be easiest to do there of all places. People who actually want to improve their card making would post in realistic. People who just want a quick pat on the head, a gold star, and a [number] out of ten could post in Any Other.

 

I think 4 lines is a bit overkill though, to be quite honest. Also, what happens if/when a debate/argument/discussion breaks out?

[Guest Icyblue]

I think as the queen of not posting sheet in Realistic Cards I am duty bound to weigh my thoughts on this.

 

I always figured that with Custom Cards having 4 whole sections all to itself (Realistic, Pop Culture, Any Other, Written) doing something like creating an Advanced Clause would be easiest to do there of all places. People who actually want to improve their card making would post in realistic. People who just want a quick pat on the head, a gold star, and a [number] out of ten could post in Any Other.

 

I think 4 lines is a bit overkill though, to be quite honest. Also, what happens if/when a debate/argument/discussion breaks out?

 

I had written up a mock rule regarding it in an IM:

 

Minimum of 3 to 4 points at the card, as well as one personal remark providing their own likeness. Which should average at least 3-4 sentences. If a user feels as though the points made about said card has already been said, they must quote the post that has made said points and add a further 2 points minimum, to that post even if it's just a detailed agreement; as well as a further line that speaks of a personal remark you have on said card.

After such post has been made, you are free to discuss the card however you see fit. Within the boundaries of the other rules of course.

Members under 300 posts or have not been here for at least a month (whichever is lesser), are exempt from this posting requirement.

 

Already covered.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

What the hell is that scrolling bar crap? Make it a proper paragraph if you want someone to read it. =\

 

On an unrelated note, I remember reviewing sets back when I was drunk and I remember a lot of my opinions on cards typically just boiled down to: "It's a bad, more situational, less versatile version of [blank]".

 

Something like, they made a set of Ninja's or something, and card was like 'Throwing Star! - Equip. Increase attack of a Ninja by 1000. After this monster battles, discard this card.' Except... with correct-ish OCG. Anyway, it's obviously a bad version of Axe Despair.

 

 

So anyway, what I'm saying is that some cards just can not lend themselves to 4 lines of content. Really, I couldn't find much to add to Throwing Star, since it was just really that bad and at some point I go from reviewing a card to re-writing the damn card myself which is something I have no intention of doing (and also something that no one wants me to do)

 

And on that note, what about vanillas? And on an unrelated note, is it 4 lines per card? If I make a 20 card set, should I expect seeing 80 lines per post for everyone who posts after me? Etc etc.

[Guest Icyblue]

Typically on sets, I just follow by the "make sure your reply is sensible regarding the numbers" thing. I do not believe in setting standards, for ANYTHING and am heavily against manipulative standardization that many people do. Doing so would cause me to go back on my own word, and hypocrisy is not something I am willing to practice anytime soon. If anything it would be something like "For sets follow the same outline as you would for a single, but add a little more to emphasize the set itself and be sensible. So please be kind and courteous to people's efforts. If your reply is deemed unsuitable for the thread you will be warned accordingly and at the discretion of the immediate moderator."

[Guest Mr. Striker]

*sips Root Beer*

 

Well, I do think an advanced clause would do us good. It would theoretically attempt to solve the problem in RC with lack luster reviews. It would also, theoretically, help AoC since the clause in RC would send some reviewers down there. I'd love to see this in action because I'm quite interested in where this might go.

[bury the year]

So anyway, what I'm saying is that some cards just can not lend themselves to 4 lines of content. Really, I couldn't find much to add to Throwing Star, since it was just really that bad and at some point I go from reviewing a card to re-writing the damn card myself which is something I have no intention of doing (and also something that no one wants me to do)

 

And on that note, what about vanillas? And on an unrelated note, is it 4 lines per card? If I make a 20 card set, should I expect seeing 80 lines per post for everyone who posts after me? Etc etc.

 

*wasn't insinuating adding a base standard for line length, if that's the problem*

 

Advanced Clause for CC would literally just be a request to give thoughtful criticism when applicable, but not necessarily lengthy. As you mentioned, there are some situations where you really can't say much.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

*wasn't insinuating adding a base standard for line length, if that's the problem*

 

Welche did, and a mild glance at Icy's scrolling bar thing seems to mention... something about 3-4 sentences.

[Guest Welche]

Since I put enough effort into this...

 

 

 

Any comment in this section is expected to be at least 4 lines in length at a minimum. This is to facilitate better help. One line long posts might tell a user if the card is good, but it isn't enough to make the user better at card making. Longer posts on the other hand require more thought and more detail which ultimately will help a user in the long run. An example is that instead of just giving an OCG fix, you explain why their OCG was wrong. This means that next time they do something similar they will know to do it the new way instead of their original way.

 

There are of course going to be exceptions to this:

1. As topic creator, this clause does not apply. This is because you aren't reviewing the card, so generally your posts will be thanking the member who did post a review. It would just be silly to expect you to post more than one line of text in this situation.
   
2. In response to a question form the topic creator, or another user. If you posted a comment and the TC or another user wants you to clarify a small thing or something than you are free to do that briefly.
   

Please remember that this 4 lines is a minimum. It would be much better in fact if you could give a very brief paragraph on all attributes of the card, but that would be hard to do every time.

 

This is my proposal.

[Guest Icyblue]

My way or the highway. Yours is too rigid, there isn't flexibility, your word doesnt have weight yet (a day after being asked isn't activity, it's complying; nor would I be open so quickly but Rinne's word has a hell of a lot of weight), and it most definitely doesn't suit an idea-mindset. It's more focused on standardization, which shouldn't occur.

[Guest Welche]

Well that is the idea I am proposing, but I am open to hear your own ideas. The main idea behind this suggestion was just CC reform. It could really use (in my opinion) an update to improve quality. Just because I think standardization is good doesn't mean that's the only way that would make me happy. I would be happy to learn what kind of suggestions you have.

[Guest Icyblue]

I'm sorry... Are you implying I have to comply with your ideas and listen for a yes from you before this get's off the ground? Let alone someone who swallows before he bothers to chew his food. Be fortunate I'm even considering manipulating Realistic Cards.

 

I had written up a mock rule regarding it in an IM:

 

Minimum of 3 to 4 points at the card, as well as one personal remark providing their own likeness. Which should average at least 3-4 sentences. If a user feels as though the points made about said card has already been said, they must quote the post that has made said points and add a further 2 points minimum, to that post even if it's just a detailed agreement; as well as a further line that speaks of a personal remark you have on said card.

After such post has been made, you are free to discuss the card however you see fit. Within the boundaries of the other rules of course.

Members under 300 posts or have not been here for at least a month (whichever is lesser), are exempt from this posting requirement.

 

And I had already posted MY ROUGH DRAFT. NOT IDEA/SUGGESTION.

[Guest Welche]

What are you talking about with that opening. It makes no sense at all and if I had the power to delete it like you did earlier I would for the same reason.

 

As for that rule, I like it enough.

[Guest Mr. Striker]

This is my problem with your draft Josh. Someone could just say 3-4 generic, unhelpful sentences like below.

 

OCG is horrible. Image sucks. Card is too OP'd. 5/10

 

That is a concern that may or may not be addressed.

[Guest Welche]

This is my problem with your draft Josh. Someone could just say 3-4 generic, unhelpful sentences like below.

 

 

 

That is a concern that may or may not be addressed.

 

Well those aren't really sentences, more of phrases.

[Guest Mr. Striker]

Well those aren't really sentences, more of phrases.

 

It at least proves a point. Something like that could bypass the rules.

[Guest Welche]

It at least proves a point. Something like that could bypass the rules.

 

Ya the revised rule will/would need to have a condition explaining what is meant by sentences in the context.

[Ieyasu Tokugawa]

I'm sorry... Are you implying I have to comply with your ideas and listen for a yes from you before this get's off the ground?

He's not .-.

[Guest Icyblue]

What are you talking about with that opening. It makes no sense at all and if I had the power to delete it like you did earlier I would for the same reason.

 

As for that rule, I like it enough.

Your tone Welche, I don't respond to language or words, I respond to tone. Be more careful with your word choice.

 

It at least proves a point. Something like that could bypass the rules.

It's supposed to, while promoting something much more. Excessiveness of it will be noted and the member would be punished accordingly, as it would be a vivid dodge of the "rule" but hardly a healthy one. As my rules are built for flexibility, as are the conditions that I warn and punish people; for maximum expression of ideas.