J-Max Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 I'm just hoping that this new Clause does not scare off a lot of Members from even posting. Especially with the chance of that Banhammer falling.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sander Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 [quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1321914289' post='5657725'] I'm just hoping that this new Clause does not scare off a lot of Members from even posting. Especially with the chance of that Banhammer falling.... [/quote] Will you stop worrying already? It's not like they're going to ban a member on the spot for not following AC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Max Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 [quote name='Æther Royce' timestamp='1321914694' post='5657746'] Will you stop worrying already? It's not like they're going to ban a member on the spot for not following AC. [/quote] Read Posts 5 & 6 of this Topic again mate. Now do you understand me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Alda Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 [quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1321914289' post='5657725'] I'm just hoping that this new Clause does not scare off a lot of Members from even posting. Especially with the chance of that Banhammer falling.... [/quote] We don't need new members, we need better members. If the banhammer gets people to actually [i]think[/i] before posting, then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 [quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1321914289' post='5657725'] I'm just hoping that this new Clause does not scare off a lot of Members from even posting. Especially with the chance of that Banhammer falling.... [/quote] It doesnt affect users with 300 or less posts, or have been here for 1 month (whichever is more beneficial to the user). It shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDDRodrigo Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 [quote name='Icyblue' timestamp='1321915586' post='5657805'] It doesnt affect users with 300 or less posts, or have been here for 1 month (whichever is more beneficial to the user). It shouldn't. [/quote] This is a nice thing, and fair. At least we won't stop having new members. But obviously, 1 month is enough for knowing the rules. Plus, do you think we could use some sort of help to the new, or less experienced players, to be able to rate cards properly? Like guides regarding what is a broken or what is a underpowered card, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welche the crab Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 I don't think you could write an effective guide for what is balanced and what isn't. It takes time to test the combos a card can make in the meta and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDDRodrigo Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 [quote name='Welche' timestamp='1321918554' post='5657947'] I don't think you could write an effective guide for what is balanced and what isn't. It takes time to test the combos a card can make in the meta and such. [/quote] Obviously nothing advanced, just a path for they to follow. Something easy to understand, and not hard to make either. We don't need to write a deep, long article about the meta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♥Łövëły-Ċħän♥ Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 While reading through the posts I have little concern for this test and I welcome it. However, questions have been brought to my attention by various people. Some have been worried that indicating obvious issues such as requesting a printed lore due to small print will result in punishment. I told them that I doubted it would as being able to read the lore is required to comment on the card, although that could be remedied by PMing the card poster or by another method other than commenting within said thread. There was also the matter of asking questions. If a person asks a question, must they still follow these rules? I replied that I, again, doubted that they would be required to AS LONG AS the question had direct relevancy to their ability to comment. What if an excerpt from an effect is confusing and said commenter required complete understanding of that excerpt, would they be permitted to ask that simple question without it being 4 sentences 12 word each? I expressed how I felt that would be impractical. However, if the question is irrelevant to being able to comment on the card, then it would not be excused. However, that would require a system of identifying whether the question is relevant or not. Although, most commenters, like Mikhail and Kale, can comment on cards and include their confusion and ask questions. That's all I have. As I've said, I like the idea and I'm not complaining about it. Yes it'll cut down on comments, but said comments were little more than bumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 ... After noting it all, and figuring my own posts. I will accept the 48 word minimum requirement, and remove the sentence requirement. However, you must still make the 4 points and 4 sentences (unless quoted etc, etc). Go figure, I have to jump the gun and punish someone before anything healthy gets said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 [quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1321914886' post='5657757'] Read Posts 5 & 6 of this Topic again mate. Now do you understand me? [/quote] This is why I'm concerned, J-max. Mikhail already said he was going to enjoy watching me suffer. Now I'm suddenly supposed to believe he didn't mean that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 [quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1321933623' post='5658551'] This is why I'm concerned, J-max. Mikhail already said he was going to enjoy watching me suffer. Now I'm suddenly supposed to believe he didn't mean that? [/quote] Yes. Because as I saw already you average 80 words per post with this rule in effect. You don't have ANYTHING to worry about, and neither does anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Max Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 You're agreeing with Rag Icy? This I thought I would never see I'll be starting to review Cards myself and will definatly keep this clause in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 maybe so, but given how badly he had been wanting it well let's just say the thirst for retribution is a powerful force in its own right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 [quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1321933857' post='5658562'] You're agreeing with Rag Icy? [/quote] Right now he's a good measure for statistics given his past habits. It's not so much agreeing, more like acknowledging. And I love my statistics (so much so when people call for survey reasons I just fill it out xD- gotta give back some how). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 [quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1321933857' post='5658562'] You're agreeing with Rag Icy? This I thought I would never see I'll be starting to review Cards myself and will definatly keep this clause in mind. [/quote] well even hell has to freeze over some day, J-max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ieyasu Tokugawa Posted November 22, 2011 Report Share Posted November 22, 2011 [quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1321933623' post='5658551'] Mikhail already said he was going to enjoy watching me suffer. [/quote] Even if he did, there's nothing he can do if you're following the rule, which according to Josh you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I've decided on something just to make sure it's enforced easily. [font=courier new,courier,monospace]3 warns = 1 day post lock.[/font] [font=courier new,courier,monospace]If you exceed 3 warns within a 2 hour period = 3 day post lock.[/font] These will not be restricted to local CC moderators, and exist as a guideline for us. We may break this as we personally choose, but it will serve as the standard. All other moderators who come in here to help with it, I urge you to follow this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Leo Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I salute you moderating staff of custom cards. This was definetly something we needed implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 [quote name='PikaPerson01' timestamp='1322275936' post='5666067'] This card is basically Raigeki, but with a life point cost and (possibly?) the loss of your battle phase for that turn. Overpowered. [/quote] Like it'll work, Leo. The mods don't even obey it themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catterjune Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 [quote name='Dт. Михаи́л Ботви́нник PчD' timestamp='1321051376' post='5633516'] - Minimum of four sentences - Each a minimum of twelve words [/quote] Focusing on quantity over quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 [quote name='PikaPerson01' timestamp='1322276685' post='5666108'] Focusing on quantity over quality. [/quote] Which essentially is you saying "the hell with the clause" Fortunately, your editing of it will change it SLIGHTLY in that aspect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catterjune Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 [quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1322276888' post='5666118'] Which essentially is you saying "the hell with the clause" [/quote] It's more like me saying, to hell with that specific part of the clause. I have no qualms with these issues raised: [i]- Each much must make a meaningful point (?) or sufficiently reiterate a previous point - If someone else has already posted what you were thinking, you may quote their post. However, you must provide a minimum of two twelve-word sentences stating why you agree and building upon what they say. - If someone else has posted comments about the card you disagree with, you may quote their post and provide a minimum of two twelve-word sentences stating why you disagree and how you would comment.[/i] Bad posters are focusing much too much on the first 2 as opposed to the last 3, which to me are much more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 and Mikhail had said nothing about the flexibility on that part. Pika, I'd like to show you an example from the 2003 film Bulletproof Monk. You don't have to know the film recap, but there was a part of it with regards to the prophecy. The 3 parts of it goes as following: 1. He will defeat an army of enemies while a flock of cranes circles above. 2. He will battle for love in the palace of Jade. 3. He will free the brothers he never knew with the family he never had. Now later on in the film the person who is starting to fulfill the prophecy is questioned by some of the Tibetian Monks, since this guy is a pickpocket thief and everything. They felt the prophecy can't possibly apply to such a person. Main character monk pointed out that "The prophecy must apply to EVERYONE, otherwise it means nothing." I don't think I need to explain to you further as to the point I'm getting at here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Max Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 [quote name='PikaPerson01' timestamp='1322277018' post='5666128'] It's more like me saying, to hell with that specific part of the clause. I have no qualms with these issues raised: [i]- Each much must make a meaningful point (?) or sufficiently reiterate a previous point - If someone else has already posted what you were thinking, you may quote their post. However, you must provide a minimum of two twelve-word sentences stating why you agree and building upon what they say. - If someone else has posted comments about the card you disagree with, you may quote their post and provide a minimum of two twelve-word sentences stating why you disagree and how you would comment.[/i] Bad posters are focusing much too much on the first 2 as opposed to the last 3, which to me are much more important. [/quote] But what if how you feel about said card can only be summed up in around 10-12 words? Then you will hopelessly be sitting at your Keyboard finding a way to Pad out to make it the right length. The Clause may seem to be working right now but watch what happens when people really start to struggle to find the words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.