God Machismo!!!!! presents a proposal

[Just Crouton]

On DuelistGroundz, they have an entire section about discussing decks. Because we have no active admin to add such a section, I propose that the TCG section allow articles/discussion on decks.

[spoiler=Goal]
The goal of a deck article is to inform the reader. To give the reader the knowledge to understand how the deck works, and why certain cards are important.

This is not a deck help thread. The reader doesn’t help make the deck better. It’s your job to educate the reader on the deck.

To that end, I have provided guidelines to follow when writing a deck article.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler=How to write the article]

[b]Introduction/ Overview[/b]
Give us an overview of the deck in general, how does it works, what its win condition is, etc. 3-4 sentences minimum.

[b]Identify the key cards[/b]
The writer must identify [b]every [/b]important card that makes the deck run as it does, and write 3-4 sentences minimum on how they works, why they’re important, etc. You do not have to address staple cards like Monster Reborn or Dark Hole, or cards like Pot of Duality. In the case of cards like Cardcar-D or Tour Guide, it would be best to explain why you run those choices in the deck.

[b]Sample deck[/b]
The writer must provide a sample deck. The deck will be written out, with each card written in its full name. You must test your deck 3-5 times before posting the article. That is, you must test it against decks besides the standard oddball deck (Neos with Blackwings, etc.) on DN. Your article is to inform the reader, and providing an untested, poor quality deck is not informative. Extra Decks are also to be included. Side Decks are optional.

These guidelines are to prevent a flood of “discuss how cool my jaden deck is” threads.

[/spoiler]


[spoiler=Keeping track of deck articles and repeat threads]
Because we don’t have an active admin to add a deck discussion/article section, we’ll need a way to keep track of deck articles to avoid having a member make another article weeks later to discuss the deck again. To this end, I suggest a stickied thread with links to the articles.

The article reader will PM the creator of the stickied thread OR the section moderator with a link to their article to be added to the sticky thread.

In the case that the article is long gone weeks later, and a member wants to discuss the deck, they can go to the link in the stickied thread, and copy + paste the link into the OP.

To avoid necrobumping, the section moderator can lock the thread when it reaches the point where posting in it is considered necrobumping.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=When the format changes…]
In the event that the format changes, and certain cards in the deck are affected by the banlist, forcing a change in the deck, a member, preferably the original article writer, can make an updated deck, or if the deck is considered “dead” because of the banlist, the section moderator can update the sticky thread to say that the deck is currently “dead.”

[/spoiler]

Finally, a sample article on Prophecies from DGz:
[url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showtopic=145880"]http://duelistground...howtopic=145880[/url]

Any thoughts? How to improve this?

[Lonk]

I approve of this.

[Loyalist]

Sounds like a decent idea.

[Dr. Cakey]

...Support?

[mido9]

If this happens,it would be the best thing to come out of the new "Rules"

[-Berserker-]

I support. I'll already start with a Quasar Exodia article.

[Organized Chaos]

I always did like those kind of articles more than "Hear r my cardz. Der iz a wai 2 doo it butt eny otter waize r stoopid. If u donut gett it, ur bad and ur card gaymez r bad". The proposed kind of articles give people who don't understand the decktype a good chance to learn it from experienced players while still leaving room for discussion and debate. I'm probably sugarcoating but I really do like the idea.

[Blake]

... But there;s nothing against this to my knowledge, and it's been done. Welche did it a ways back without any repurcussions for it. Might've even done it twice.

[.Rai]

[quote name='Yuzuru Otonashi' timestamp='1344373236' post='6000337']
... But there;s nothing against this to my knowledge, and it's been done. Welche did it a ways back without any repurcussions for it. Might've even done it twice.
[/quote]

This. Welche has done it before.

They were just unpopular, that's all.

[Expelsword]

I should do Lavals...
but only if no one else wants to, since I apparently hurt other people's interest in them by using them.

[Blake]

It's not using them. It's that you happen to mention it even more than I used to mention Fableds.

(null)