The Realistic Cards Advanced Clause - Rules and Comments Thread [READ THIS.]

[Mehmani]

As of now, 18:46 GMT, the Advanced Clause is back in force in Realistic Cards. Following feedback and discussion, it has been significantly simplified. The aim of the Advanced Clause is to produce productive feedback, and so create a better environment for cardmaking. The new format's rules are simple:

[b][u]Rule One:[/u][/b]
Every review posted must be [b]a minimum of 45 words[/b].

[b][u]Rule Two:[/u][/b]
For breaking the Advanced Clause, you will receive [b]a 3 point (30%) warning for three days[/b]. If you break it a second time within this period, you will receive [b]a 7 point warning, which means all your content is moderated for a day[/b]. If you break it a third time, or break it persistently, you will receive [b]a 3 day ban[/b].

[b][u]Rule Three:[/u][/b]
The Advanced Clause does not apply if you have under 100 posts. After that, [b]it applies and you will be sanctioned accordingly[/b].

[u][b]Rule Four:[/b][/u]
After you have posted your review, [b]further comments don't have to be a minimum of 45 words long[/b]. However, [b]OCG fixes do not count towards the 45 word requirement[/b].

The final rule means you can continue to discuss the cards at your leisure, or even make light discussion with the creator of them. This doesn't mean you can spam.

This thread is also open for all comments, suggestions and complaints surrounding the Advanced Clause. If you have any further queries, feel free to drop me a PM.


To help you with posting under the Advanced Clause, here is a very, very simple guide:

[size=6][b][u]A Really, Really Big Idiot's Guide to the Advanced Clause[/u][/b][/size]

Alpha posts this card:
[spoiler=Example Card]
[img]http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q497/Kunnerian/Cards/GladBeastBustuariusENSE1.jpg[/img]
When this card is special summoned by the effect of a "Gladiator Beast" monster: discard 1 card; return 1 card on the field to its owner's hand. At the end of the Battle Phase, if this card attacked or was attacked, you can return it to the Deck to special summon 1 "Gladiator Beast" monster from your Deck, except "Gladiator Beast Bustuarius".[/spoiler]

A member, let's call him "YCMakerLovesHitler", posts this review:

crad is cool, pic is meh, 6/10
doritos contain monosodium glutamate

Now, YCMakerLovesHitler is a "Really, Really Big Idiot". His review is nonsensical, inane and contains a bizarre non-sequitur. In an ideal world, he and his ilk would be sterilized. He gets a warning, and then disappears. Maybe one day, YCMakerLovesHitler can post without the assistance of his nurse.

Later, a more intelligent member (let's call him "YCMakerEndoresInfanticide"), posts this review:


The card’s OCG is a little iffy, “summoned” should be “Summoned”. This card works well in conjunction with Gladiator Beasts by helping the deck goal, but it isn’t brilliant. I would suggest removing the discard cost to make it more viable. The picture doesn’t really work for me. 6/10.

This review [b][u]informs constructively[/u][/b]. YCMakerEndorsesInfanticide actually offers feedback, includes the metagame and suggests a fix. You can see that this post is short. It's only 49 words. If you try to think before you post, you can be a lot more helpful. The Advanced Clause just forces you to think more.


[size=6][b][u]How to get your card stickied for a day[/u][/b][/size]

Now, for something more interesting. If you see a member posting a review that has more than 100 words, like it. It's good for the whole community. Once you have amassed fifteen likes in your review posts, post here and link to the liked post(s). Then, I offer you a fantastic, exclusive reward: the next card you post will be stickied for a day. After this, the like counter is reset.

Now, go forth and post! Feel free to post feedback here. And finally, if you see someone breaking the Advanced Clause, PLEASE REPORT IT. It makes it a lot easier and is very much appreciated.

[spoiler=SUPER SECRET INCENTIVE]
KEEP IT QUIET, BUT A LITTLE BIRD TOLD ME THAT IF YOU REPORT SOMEONE BREAKING THE ADVANCED CLAUSE, YOU GET 100+ POINTS. I'M WHISPERING THIS IN ALL CAPS. QUIETLY.[/spoiler]

[Just Crouton]

Nice. And, you reward those who go above and beyond, AND it encourages others to follow suit.

Question: Let's say "YCMakerMurdersKittens" were to post an informative, constructive review, but it is 43-44 words. Would he still get punished?

[Mehmani]

[quote name='God Machismo!!!!!' timestamp='1346435842' post='6016710']
Nice. And, you reward those who go above and beyond, AND it encourages others to follow suit.

Question: Let's say "YCMakerMurdersKittens" were to post an informative, constructive review, but it is 43-44 words. Would he still get punished?
[/quote]

It's an interesting question. The answer is yes, but in the warn notes I'd probably tell him to just pad it out a little. If he is posting a review smaller than 45 words then he has not read the rules, and so deserves punishment, no?

[Tourmaline]

Considering how this entire concept has been repeatedly tried and actually abolished for a while, I'd prefer if you could be rigid with the rule. Go through with punishment if they do not abide after a warning.

[Mehmani]

I can only try my best. Remember, I am the only person currently moderating RC. Everyone can make my job a lot easier by reporting any infringements they see.

[Tourmaline]

I'll report any violations I see. Of course, nothing that was posted prior to this should be punished whether they violate this or not.

I'll be vigilant, though.

My question would be if you should consider contractions an individual word. Many do while many don't.

[.Rai]

Does the Advanced Clause not apply in Written Cards? If not, it easily could.

[-Griffin]

[quote name='.Rai' timestamp='1346438105' post='6016739']
Does the Advanced Clause not apply in Written Cards? If not, it easily could.
[/quote]

Oi, we get few enough comments in WC as it is. Beggars can't be choosers.

[.Rai]

[quote name='-Griffin' timestamp='1346438251' post='6016740']
Oi, we get few enough comments in WC as it is. Beggars can't be choosers.
[/quote]

Considering that RC is nearly as dead as WC, and we're doing this, it seems fine (kind of). I know that you easily do 45-word reviews anyway, and most people who even visit WC usually do anyway.

But then you get random comments like in RC which can be cut easily.

Not essential anyway though so it's fine if we don't because WC does have better quality in general anyway.

[-Griffin]

Yeah, I'm doing my best to comment on anything I think I can contribute to. No good being a hypocrite and complaining my cards don't get comments, then not commenting on a good number of threads.

Not that it's getting me comments, but yeah, actions speak louder than words, so we all gotta try and help out the sections.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

This again? At least I have my computer, which lets be makes those types of reviews easily. My biggest problem is that quantity doesn't always promote quality. I do, however, agree that we need at least something to promote quality. Let's see how round 2 of this goes.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

So this proposes more intimate reviews for cards along with plausible benefits, eh?

*cleans up and throws all troll comments and puts on a business suit*

This is defiantly far more to my liking. Now I can officially say good-bye to my semi-trolling and actually treat this section with even more respect than before (which was moderately high).

[Northern Sage]

[quote name='Archbaron Striker' timestamp='1346440907' post='6016781']
This again? At least I have my computer, which lets be makes those types of reviews easily. My biggest problem is that quantity doesn't always promote quality. I do, however, agree that we need at least something to promote quality. Let's see how round 2 of this goes.
[/quote]
That would be round 3.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

[quote name='Archbaron Thor the Just' timestamp='1346452583' post='6016902']

That would be round 3.
[/quote]

I was around when they tried it originally. I had no idea they redid it before this.

[Northern Sage]

1st one: Minimum of 40 words per post, excluding newbies
2nd one: Minimum of words go along with your level x10. Every topic should come with a description of what said card is supposed to do, with a minimum of 5 x your level.
Somewhere along those lines.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Thanks. The second version sounds ugly.

[.Leo]

I like this version of the Advanced Clause, as it promotes people to actually give good constructive reviews. Good job Alfred on this new advanced clause.

[Mehmani]

It seems to work, but it's requiring a lot of effort reading EVERY SINGLE THREAD in RC. If you see it, report it, please. It makes my job so much easier.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

[quote name='Mihails Tāls' timestamp='1346740594' post='6018950']
It seems to work, but it's requiring a lot of effort reading EVERY SINGLE THREAD in RC. If you see it, report it, please. It makes my job so much easier.
[/quote]

Would be glad to. Perhaps we'll be seeing a more active RC than before? Only time will tell...

[Mehmani]

The Advanced Clause has been imposed for several days, but I would like to know your opinions on it. What way could it be improved? Do you think it goes far enough or not? Are you in favour of it, and if not, why?

Comments and feedback are very much appreciated.

[Stan Alda]

Will this thread be regulated by the Advanced Clause? Anyway, I like it. It's much more concise and clear than the previous version, so policing this sub-forum should be easy. Part of me worries that this might lead to mini-modding, but as long as the senior members (myself included) can keep their noob-whacking instincts in check, this clause could very well bring RC back to life.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I'm in favour of it, becuase I find it irritating when the only comments people recieve are the Great pic 10/10 ect.

45 words isn't hard to strive for if you are actually being serious about the review, and it will probably increase the maturity of those who frequent RC.

as for improvements to it? Umm.... Theres none i can think of which wouldn't be a huge hassle for a mod like yourself.or that is prejudiced against certain members. The only thing I'm iffy on is about the 100 post thing, becuase whilst it is a fair thing to do in most situations, sometimes... It doesn't seem quite as justified. Since, if someone were to post say 100 of the unwanted style of posts, and those were the only 100 posts he/she made, it kinda of just defeats the purpose. Perhaps for members nearing 100 posts but not quite there yet introducing them to the advanced clause before that point would be a sensible ish idea.

Since I for one can admit to not reading all the stickies when I was a new member, so I fairly sure most others won't. But just a suggestion, to actually keep people posting beyond the stage when they hit that magic 100.

[.Leo]

Honestly I feel 65 is a better number, only because 45 is quite an easy to achieve number (hell, I hit 100 most of them time). So up the number of 45 to 65 and I feel the advanced clause would be perfect.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

[quote name='.Leo' timestamp='1346802228' post='6019334']
Honestly I feel 65 is a better number, only because 45 is quite an easy to achieve number (hell, I hit 100 most of them time). So up the number of 45 to 65 and I feel the advanced clause would be perfect.
[/quote]

Problem with that is not everyone is knowledgeable in concerns to the game I feel 45 is just fine since not everyone would know that much about the game and such to review in 65 words. That's just my opinion.

[Mehmani]

For me, building and moulding the Advanced Clause to fit as perfectly as possible was all about finding "the golden number" and "the hassle barrier". The hassle barrier is how much you can make your average RC member post without making it a chore. The golden number is the number of words that strikes the perfect balance between quality and effort - a number that makes idiots post well, essentially. I thought about the word limit for a long time, and I think forty-five is perfect. As for the "before 100 posts" thing, that was a little off the cuff. I'm considering lowering it to 85, as that's the number where you become a "Member", as opposed to a "New Member". More feedback, please.