Custom Cards Moderator Application Thread

[Guest Caeda]

Thanks much.

 

Another thing I had been throwing around was the idea of a contest of some kind where "novice" card makers team up with a veteran card maker to create a series of cards and give them the experience with designing realistic cards. Its vague sure.

 

I don't think it's a bad idea honestly. Honestly, I can see something like this working very, very well... If you can get enough new and older card makers to join.

[Guest - Neo -]

That's what I was thinking. Definitely something id be interested in implementing.

[.Leo]

That type of tournament is a cool idea, I would definitely enjoy participating in that type of tournament. I would be interested in seeing how something like that would work out.

[Guest - Neo -]

I'm gonna try and outline the idea a bit more thoroughly in the new application thread whenever he gets around to posting it

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

Yea, I might as well start drafting the mentorship proposal as well. CC really needs it a lot.

[Agro]

Thanks much.

 

Another thing I had been throwing around was the idea of a contest of some kind where "novice" card makers team up with a veteran card maker to create a series of cards and give them the experience with designing realistic cards. Its vague sure.

Though I should point out that something like that can be done without being a moderator. Though perhaps the kinds of prizes you can give out as a mod would make it more worthwhile.

[Guest Mr. A.]

I suppose I better get working on my Articles of Compliance. The chances of me winning are slow but if in the chance I lose I should propose it to the new mod.

 

Also I would like to present an idea.

 

In order to stabilize and reform AOC and PC without destroying them, could we not organize a system where any person who posts a card or cards in CC should put [Rate] on their topic in order to identify that they would like constructive criticism and or positive reception? Those who do would be rated accordingly and by putting that in the title would agree that they allow criticism of all kinds. Those who do not or those who do not wish their cards to be rated and only to be viewed will be a locked on site as if the person did not want criticism then their is no reason to post anyways as it would only be beneficial to the viewer. In order to calm the people who virtually attack other peoples topics of cards they conceive "Bad", any person who posts in a topic without the [Rate] thing in the title would be warned. This is to ensure AOC and PC"s stability and bring them back together in an orderly fashion.

 

Another thing I would like to include in this is an idea I was thinking about. Along with warns, I feel we should add fines to the disciplinary system. Since points now have a use I feel it would be wise to have those who break the rules pay fines in result of their actions.

[.Leo]

Though I should point out that something like that can be done without being a moderator. Though perhaps the kinds of prizes you can give out as a mod would make it more worthwhile.

 

Contests that are done by moderators usually generate more traffic and participation.

 

But true, it could be easily done without a moderator.

[Guest Mr. A.]

Contests that are done by moderators usually generate more traffic and participation.

 

But true, it could be easily done without a moderator.

There is another specific way to generate activity, however it is usually frowned upon. I have noticed that when YCMemes take place user activity seems to skyrocket. Display Name Chains, the Church of Nexus. Those things usually generate a bountifulness of activity.

[Guest Caeda]

I suppose I better get working on my Articles of Compliance. The chances of me winning are slow but if in the chance I lose I should propose it to the new mod.

 

Also I would like to present an idea.

 

In order to stabilize and reform AOC and PC without destroying them, could we not organize a system where any person who posts a card or cards in CC should put [Rate] on their topic in order to identify that they would like constructive criticism and or positive reception? Those who do would be rated accordingly and by putting that in the title would agree that they allow criticism of all kinds. Those who do not or those who do not wish their cards to be rated and only to be viewed will be a locked on site as if the person did not want criticism then their is no reason to post anyways as it would only be beneficial to the viewer. In order to calm the people who virtually attack other peoples topics of cards they conceive "Bad", any person who posts in a topic without the [Rate] thing in the title would be warned. This is to ensure AOC and PC"s stability and bring them back together in an orderly fashion.

actions.

 

I feel like the section should have the Jack Witt clause outlined. I don't think we should have a tagging system for it. If someone says they don't want criticism or attack anyone who gives it, lock the thread. I just don't see the point of requiring people to put [Rate] in the title.

 

Besides, Rate kinda gives the wrong impression, like saying HERE GIMME A NUMBER OUT OF TEN.

 

I just feel like the Jack Witt clause does what you're saying simpler. Maybe I misunderstood and if I did, I'm sorry. ^^''

[Guest Mr. A.]

I feel like the section should have the Jack Witt clause outlined. I don't think we should have a tagging system for it. If someone says they don't want criticism or attack anyone who gives it, lock the thread. I just don't see the point of requiring people to put [Rate] in the title.

 

Besides, Rate kinda gives the wrong impression, like saying HERE GIMME A NUMBER OUT OF TEN.

 

I just feel like the Jack Witt clause does what you're saying simpler. Maybe I misunderstood and if I did, I'm sorry. ^^''

Problem. If we keep Jack Witt then topics will end up having discussions where we end up seeing people debating over the issue. Once we see that the user cannot handle the criticism the mods lock it.

 

With my system conversations won't even arise regarding that issue. With the [Rate] title, people who ask for criticism are given criticism and those who aren't are locked. Simple as that and therefore there is no arguing over the matter and no conflict.

 

And the 1/10 rating system isn't all that bad. They would still have to abide by the Advanced Clause however. This allows for quick locks and quick prevention of conflict. The [Rate] system is NOT for the benefit of the Members, it is a benefit for the mods who sometimes do not have the time to investigate every little topic to see who is good or bad.

 

You did not misunderstand me, but the Jack Witt clause means that the person will have to prove if he can handle criticism. My system takes away that right simply because if you do not put [Rate] there, you did not read the rules and therefore you are locked. I have never been known to be merciful.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

I've been working on a draft for the mentorship program, mainly requirenents and things that make a good mentor/student. If anyone wants to take a look and/or help out, let me know so I can send you what I have currently.

[Mehmani]

I have always liked the Jack Witt clause, but I disagree with locking topics immediately because we suspect that the OP can't take criticism. As I illustrated earlier, members who start off badly can still come good. We can try to talk the OP into accepting criticism and maturing as a person. I accept that it is highly likely that this will not produce instant change, but over the course of time, the opportunity to reflect may come into play. Just think: if I had posted my "GOD CARD SET PLZ RATE LOLLLL" in Realistic Cards instead of Finished Sets, J-Max would have banned me. And I know exactly what 10-year-old "metal_gear_solid_alf" would have done. He would have BAWWWWWWWed and quit the damn site and never come back. If we adopt the attitude of absolute exclusion and petty elitism that is pervasive throughout many parts of this site, then we must understand that future Mihails Tals, Strikers, Mr. As and even Hatchers may be shut out before they show their true colours. Look at the change evident in Striker, or Halubaris Maphotika.

[Guest Caeda]

I wasn't saying immediately lock a topic, and neither does the Jack Witt clause.

 

The whole [Rate] thing seems needlessly complex. What if someone simply forgets it? Why does it help mods? So they can just lock a thread without looking? What if that thread is actually productive, and the thread with [Rate] right next to it has nothing but spam in it? "Quick Locking" does not necessarily equal quality control.

 

And, no it does.

 

 

9. The Jack Witt Clause

 

All deck topics are treated as rate and fix topics. This means that, when you post your deck, you will receive comments and evaluations of the deck's quality from other members and suggestions as to how to improve it. If you cannot deal with this, then do not post your deck. If you post your deck and then show that you cannot or will not accept constructive criticism, you will not only appear childish but also run the risk of having your topics closed.

 

(just replace deck with card pls)

 

It doesn't say you have to PROVE you can handle criticism. It says that if you don't accept it or cannot accept it, your thread will risk being locked.

 

The whole number rating system just seems lazy to me, but as long as it's accompanied by an Advanced Clause review, it should be fine.

 

You can't be a cold hearted dictator like that. People forget things, and the idea that I HAVE to tag my topics turns me away from a section almost immediately.

[Agro]

Locking a topic should only really happen if it gets out of hand and there's no longer any focus on the card and nothing looks like it's going to improve because of it. And yes, rating is stupid and does nothing to help the cardmaker.

 

As far as the advance clause, I do agree that there are probably better ideas than it. Sure, it's a definitive way to make sure people post enough to make something, but it really doesn't help if someone's just bullsh*tting their way through it or it's lowering the amount of activity towards the section by members that know what they're doing (also no, I don't think 100 posts is soon enough for making new members follow the clause, it should be sooner!)

 

I rather like part of the idea broken presented, where we make sure that there are certain things they need to adress if they mean to post. Like a form in a way. Though the exact ways we would go about piecing that together would need a rather long discussion to work through.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

The thing is though, different reviewers focus on different things. It's one of those things we have to take into consideration. Also, hasn't the Jack Witt clause been common knowledge for a while in CC? I thought that was the case, but I guess not. I agree we need to put it in the rules.

[Guest American Machismo!!!!!]

Uhhh...

 

Urgh...

 

ARGH!!!! FINE! LET'S DO IT!

 

Name: Machismo H. Crouton (currently "American Machismo!!!!!")

 

Estimated Activity in CC (in months): I lurk here everyday since 2009, occasionally posting cards/ updating my "Oni" cards

 

Plan of action/Policies for CC: We've got the Advanced Clause down already. A problem I notice here (Realistic Cards especially) is that people don't seem to consider HOW exactly a card will work in a deck and assume it will work one way, or argue that it's an easy OTK, no matter how inconsistent it actually sounds. We have Duel Portal, but all we have to promote it is a single thread. As a mod, I would encourage Duel Portal tournaments. In these tournaments, players will use their own created cards (obviously) to compete against other players CC decks (obviously.) To control card quality, judges will be elected to check the cards to make sure the created card aren't "summon/play this, win duel/match" or "throw 5 2500+ ATKers on board, gg." In this case, I (or a member I can bribe) will probably need to make a card list (ugh), and likely a banlist, which I hope we NEVER have to do.

 

Just like in TCG, members will be allowed to hold their own tourneys here and/or in Written Cards (a certain criteria will have to be met for it to be legal, or it gets locked,) which will(?) be stickied for the duration of the tournament. In addition, I (or a better player if I can bribe convince one) will hold a big tournament at least twice a year (likely one during Christmas/New Year's time, the other during the summer when schools out.) Players who win these tournaments will receive prizes such as allowing 1 of their threads of their choosing to be stickied for a week, or something else.

 

Also, I would like to encourage CCGs here (points across the room to .Leo) for community projects. Possibly a sub-section for them?

 

Ultimately, the goal is to encourage players to consider playability of their cards by actually playing them in the Duel Portal simulator. By understanding how the cards work, it allows them another way of knowing why their card is weak/useless/broken.

 

Another likely idea would be to make a sub-section to move finished tournament threads to so others can see it.

 

 

Why do you think you should moderate CC?: Because...my cheeks dimple when I smile...?

[Guest Spike the Bloody]

I dont expect anything to happen, but no harm in trying :)

 

 

Name: ~Spike~

Estimated Activity in CC (in months): Been a lurker/semi-poster since....hmm...since I started in February of 2010. So long time.

Plan of action/Policies for CC: Make it hella better. Mostly implementing Advance-Clause-like things in the other CC sections, and maybe starting a Club strictly for reviewing cards.

Why do you think you should moderate CC?: Because I'm a very understanding person and while I dont know Yugioh inside and out, I know lots of stuff about it.

[Agro]

The thing is though, different reviewers focus on different things. It's one of those things we have to take into consideration. Also, hasn't the Jack Witt clause been common knowledge for a while in CC? I thought that was the case, but I guess not. I agree we need to put it in the rules.

Then we give them an assortment of areas they can cover and ask them that they fulfill a minimum requirement of a few areas.

 

Also, it should be noted that people newer to the internet, aka people who just stumbled upon YCM, probably don't know the Jack Witt clause.

[Guest Coolpuppy23]

Since anyone can apply...

 

Name: RestLess AC

Estimated Activity in CC (in months): When I first came until about when Rag was banned.

Plan of action/Policies for CC: Ban all the noobs who make bad cards and let others dictate my actions.

Why do you think you should moderate CC?: Why shouldn't I?

[Guest - Neo -]

The goal should be to improve the activity of RC above all else with quality over quantity. Back in 07-08, there weren't tons of cards posted, but members were very active and the cards (though the OCG wasn't nearly as good back then) were actually unique and well-made.

 

If we want to get back to something like that, we need to actually help members. A lot of times I see ignorant arguments between members over whether or not a card is broken and one side doesn't take time to listen to the other, insults are thrown, etc. It's just stupid and does nothing to help the section or the member(s) posting the cards.

 

The goal should be to improve the activity of RC above all else with quality over quantity. Back in 07-08, there weren't tons of cards posted, but members were very active and the cards (though the OCG wasn't nearly as good back then) were actually unique and well-made.

 

If we want to get back to something like that, we need to actually help members. A lot of times I see ignorant arguments between members over whether or not a card is broken and one side doesn't take time to listen to the other, insults are thrown, etc. It's just stupid and does nothing to help the section or the member(s) posting the cards.

[Guest Caeda]

The goal should be to improve the activity of RC above all else with quality over quantity. Back in 07-08, there weren't tons of cards posted, but members were very active and the cards (though the OCG wasn't nearly as good back then) were actually unique and well-made.

 

If we want to get back to something like that, we need to actually help members. A lot of times I see ignorant arguments between members over whether or not a card is broken and one side doesn't take time to listen to the other, insults are thrown, etc. It's just stupid and does nothing to help the section or the member(s) posting the cards.

 

The goal should be to improve the activity of RC above all else with quality over quantity. Back in 07-08, there weren't tons of cards posted, but members were very active and the cards (though the OCG wasn't nearly as good back then) were actually unique and well-made.

 

If we want to get back to something like that, we need to actually help members. A lot of times I see ignorant arguments between members over whether or not a card is broken and one side doesn't take time to listen to the other, insults are thrown, etc. It's just stupid and does nothing to help the section or the member(s) posting the cards.

 

It's depressing to see that happen. RC needs a change in how people act as well. If we can just get some quality activity going, the section would skyrocket. It's not even that CARDS have to be great, the discussions alone being good would increase the activity, but it's so hard to get everything moving. x-x

[Guest - Neo -]

Agreed. It's really for that reason that I don't care who becomes Mod, it's just more important that the motivation is there and people aren't doing it solely for power. There are some people I've seen apply in this thread (I won't name names) that I think would be terrible choices based on other displays of behavior and arrogance that wouldn't do anything but make the section more clustered. Whoever it is needs to actually implement ideas and put actual effort into boosting RC instead of just locking topics and the likes.

 

Doing it for power is honestly not going to do anything for this section and I hope that the Electors (totally poor word choice but oh well) realize that and don't do it based on popularity.

[Guest Mr. A.]

Agreed. It's really for that reason that I don't care who becomes Mod, it's just more important that the motivation is there and people aren't doing it solely for power. There are some people I've seen apply in this thread (I won't name names) that I think would be terrible choices based on other displays of behavior and arrogance that wouldn't do anything but make the section more clustered. Whoever it is needs to actually implement ideas and put actual effort into boosting RC instead of just locking topics and the likes.

 

Doing it for power is honestly not going to do anything for this section and I hope that the Electors (totally poor word choice but oh well) realize that and don't do it based on popularity.

All I want to do is create reform without radically changing everything. That and I want to feel like I contributed at least ONCE to YCM over the course of my pointless tenure here.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

Agreed. It's really for that reason that I don't care who becomes Mod, it's just more important that the motivation is there and people aren't doing it solely for power. There are some people I've seen apply in this thread (I won't name names) that I think would be terrible choices based on other displays of behavior and arrogance that wouldn't do anything but make the section more clustered. Whoever it is needs to actually implement ideas and put actual effort into boosting RC instead of just locking topics and the likes.

Doing it for power is honestly not going to do anything for this section and I hope that the Electors (totally poor word choice but oh well) realize that and don't do it based on popularity.

 

^This^

 

These are difficult times, and I hope we can figure out a definite way to bring CC back from the trenches.