Jump to content

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

Mehmani

By Mehmani
in Realistic Cards

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Mehmani Newbie

Mehmani

Posted
  • Author
Posted

[quote name='newhat' timestamp='1352302644' post='6063095']
I don't know about that, but I frequently avoid posting on topics where all I have to say is "This forms an Infinite Loop with Macro Cosmos unless you change its Mandatory Trigger Effect to Optional" or "This is strictly outclassed by Summoned Skull". If that was your intention, good job, I suppose.
[/quote]

I know that you're very smart, Newhat, and that you're excellent at the game. You are clever enough to bulk out such valid and relevant advice. I understand the criticism, but it is something that comes with the nature of the AC. I feel that lowering the word limit would lower the bar slightly. I am considering lowering it to 40.
[quote name='Zaziuma' timestamp='1352323621' post='6063322']
I think the Advanced Clause is good in it's purpose, but it does make for some problems. People of other nationalities may be limited in their english language skill, I can say that for myself, I sometimes have a hard time coming up with things to say because I simply don't know how to say it, and that annoys me since I need to follow those 45 words. I don't think it should be a requirement, but something to strife for, if you know what I mean. You can post a good review in 45 words or less, or at least something that would help the card maker, like saying, hey this card would not work because X could be summoned and you would win easily. That in itself is useful information that the creator can take into a count, while others like lame card 1/10 isn't. I don't think it should be required, but maybe nudge the reviewer and say that more useful information is needed.

As someone pointed out previously, you should have knownlage when posting in RC, and while I somewhat agree, I think we're just pushing people out who don't have more knownlage to the game who wish to provite insightful reviews. I mean I post card in RC more often then other places, because of the fact that I want the more insightful input since I'm not as familiar with what works in current game and not. If I make cards that break the game, people will tell me, but others might not know much about the supect and takes it for granded that you should know more about it then you already do. If we just say, well you shouldn't post here unless you know that and that, we are being discriminating by closing people out who isn't as much into the game as others, and while that may be what the other sub-forums are for, it doesn't seem like the right communtity you would want.
[/quote]

You may not be familiar with the English language, Zaziuma, but after reading your well-written statement I get the idea that you won't have a problem with the system. The nature of RC is that while you should know about the game to post, by posting your cards here you learn from the reviews. Unless you are already well-versed in the game, I don't think you would start straight out by posting card reviews. As many do and as I did, you start out by posting cards and reading your feedback. And through said feedback, you learn more about the game and improve as a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
LeguBrit Newbie

LeguBrit

Posted
Posted

As new as I am, I do have an opinion:

[quote]
IMO the one thing that stops reviews is the Advanced Clause. Sure, back whenever, you could post a card and reliably get 7-8 posts, but most of them were like "8/10" or "cool pic bro". The Advanced Clause doesn't just filter out the short comments, for many it filters ALL comments. I'd say it starts with taking away the Advanced Clause.
[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shinobi Phoenix Newbie

Shinobi Phoenix

Posted
Posted

[quote name='AixDivadis' timestamp='1356385856' post='6101288']
I suppose that's true. After all, it's really the noobs who do super-short comments and the Advanced Clause doesn't affect them anyway.

We should really just get people to give reps for good reviews.
[/quote]

Except that:
-- Reps are arbitrary and pointless. They have no actual value and people pick and choose WHO THEY like (not who gives them good reviews) to assign them to. Especially the people that actually offer them "for a good review", except that just translates to "if you said something I like or agree with and didn't piss me off when you didn't like my card". Even people who get great reviews (regardless of the content) and thank you for the help DON'T GIVE THE REPS (that happened just recently to me). So that is meaningless at this point without some real value of sorts attached and even than, people need to actually "pay it forward" for services rendered. Else, we have nothing more than a "Yes-Man System" going on.

-- People that really can't come up with 45 DECENT things to say about a card they actually like [u]are for the most part [b]lazy[/b][/u] and [color=#ff0000][u][b]not the sort of people who should be commenting in the first place[/b][/u][/color] as the point of all this is [b]feedback FOR THE CREATOR[/b] to help him make changes and grow from there. So if you think putting some short two-cent comment helps, you're LYING TO YOURSELF and doing more harm than good (if any good at all) and just upping your own post count. It amazes me how many people here will mask their own self-serving natures under such things and then complain about the systems in place to stop it. [u][b]On the same topic[/b][/u], I hate when people act like you have to directly review the cards (as opposed to the concept or you are trying to grasp the concept better else, you couldn't comment on the cards anyway as you don't know what the creator is intending) and the creator himself gets mad because he takes things too "literal". Maybe it's not the word count, it's people knowing what they are commenting on. Maybe you can't (for some reason) get 45 words out of talking about a card directly, but you certainly can if you [u]are also[/u] asking questions about it, inquiring about ideas and actually conveying them back and forth (you know... a conversation). Far too many people here "talk at" a creator and don't "talk to" a creator. They comment on a card about what is right there and don't ask what the creator actually intended, they just go on and on and judge a card based on what they themselves THINK the card should be or say that it is inherently wrong (or right) in some form. I can understand critique, but critique also ask you to try and understand the work before you, which means you can't properly judge it without knowing what the creator wanted and bounce those opinions off of each other and come to an understanding. I can promise, 45 words isn't even close to hard if you are actually TALKING to the creator. Ask questions more, try to come to an understanding and try to help each other (not just say what you think is wrong). You're supposed to be helping the guy come to a point where the card is equal parts [u]what he wants[/u] balanced with [u]what the card could be without breaking the game [/u]balanced [u]with what is mechanically correct[/u].

-- Citing language barrier as a complaint is a SORRY excuse and pointless. If you know enough to complain, you know enough to follow. If you are on a site, you should sort of have an idea to what IS [b]REGULARLY EXPECTED ON THAT SITE![/b] No matter the complaint, this IS an English-speaking, thus a primarily English-speaking patron membership. I can't go on a German site and complain about things I can't do or read very well or comment on because I my German isn't that good (I do know SOME German and I'm gradually learning). Hell, one of the most popular English translation blogs for YGO on the entire internet is run by a [b]GERMAN[/b] guy who [u]writes it all in English[/u], do you think he complains? (btw-- I'm referring to Shriek's blog -- [url="http://shriek.twoday.net/"]http://shriek.twoday.net/[/url] and TCG: [url="http://shriektcg.twoday.net/"]http://shriektcg.twoday.net/[/url] - I'm actually one of his friends online and we talk pretty regularly offline and I help him once in a while with mistakes or research). Hell, most of us won't go on one of those Asian sites where they talk about OCG cards directly and get mad we can't comment and get a response. In fact, most of us will wait for someone to translate it for it before we even attempt to talk about it, so why are we here trying that? (or did I miss the fact that this very forum has threads of people talking about cards [b]CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT[/b] because someone translated it for them). [b]If you have problems with the language, you shouldn't be afraid to ask for help or you won't learn anyway. If you are struggling (for some reason) to come up with things to say, you won't learn to have things to say without trying in the first place and then if you're corrected, so what? You just learned something that you can now use later and you'll make the same mistakes less. [/b] (I learned that well traveling through Europe). Even native speakers screw up their own language (that's why we still teach it native speakers their own language well into college (university).



As for myself personally, I honestly will put some effort into a review, usually if I like a card or a set or a concept and want to comment about something of it, I will write the statement OFFLINE and copy-paste it in after I'm done (especially because YCM likes to go down so much). Then I can do research and add notes and such and then I have a complete review instead of sitting there with the Comment Window open. That said, I honestly don't comment THAT often because I want to have something to say that I think actually would be constructive (not dismissive).

On that note also, here's a bit of constructive feedback: If someone has a negative argument against your card, and someone reading the thread who hasn't yet comment DOES SO to DEFEND your card with a counterargument against the first, please, [b]do not then complain to the person [u]who came to [color=#ff0000]your defense[/color][/u] that they didn't actually comment on your card[/b]. A: That's insanely rude and ungrateful and I can promise they won't do it again for you and likely not to anyone else since you just shown them it's not worth it and B: They did comment on your card indirectly by defending it.


Rules are rules, but there is something to be said of mature, logical discretion when it comes to things. A slightly shorter 40 word review that was visible shown to be well-thought out and trying to actually help truly (some times being concise is best) doesn't need to be reported, if you do, you're probably just trying to get the 200 points reward. A long statement not saying anything would be just as bad, but that would be spam in both cases anyway. Intent is the heart of all this, but in most cases, if you intend to say something willfully constructive, it's not going to be a short statement anyway and 45 words isn't even close long (I mean really, aren't a lot of you in college or at least high school?). Also a lot of you put at least 30 words in your Facebook statuses (including here), so I guess it really is the content and how much you care about it?




[b]I will go back to my old-man porch now, I've done enough yelling at you to get off my lawn for today. Happy [/b][b]Holidays.[/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Catterjune Newbie

Catterjune

Posted
Posted

I don't know about that, but I frequently avoid posting on topics where all I have to say is "This forms an Infinite Loop with Macro Cosmos unless you change its Mandatory Trigger Effect to Optional" or "This is strictly outclassed by Summoned Skull". If that was your intention, good job, I suppose.

This.

tl;dr - The advanced clause. An exercise in having the least amount of content in the most amount of words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morgan LeFlay Newbie

Morgan LeFlay

Posted
Posted

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

 

 

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 informs constructively. 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.

 

Aren't these two things contradicting each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morgan LeFlay Newbie

Morgan LeFlay

Posted
Posted

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


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.
 

"The card’s OCG is a little iffy, “summoned” should be “Summoned”." is an OCG review and 11 words are taken up for OCG, leaving 38 words for the actual review of the card. I just feel like rule 4 says specifically not to count OCG fixes towards your 45 words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Avaren Newbie

Avaren

Posted
Posted

1st off I know this is old, but if 1 person didn't recognize this, then others won't... and it is a sticky-ed thread.

 

"The card’s OCG is a little iffy, “summoned” should be “Summoned”." is an OCG review and 11 words are taken up for OCG, leaving 38 words for the actual review of the card. I just feel like rule 4 says specifically not to count OCG fixes towards your 45 words.

 

The example shown was likely from BEFORE the change to the rules that stops OCG from counting... and was likely not changed when it was.

If you read forward a few pages, you should get the context that made me draw this conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...