The Rules have been Updated

[Blake]

The rules are here. Please take the time to read them and use this thread to voice your concerns, if any, with the current state of the rules.

 

Also, the first CC Card Test will be this Saturday, April 13th of 2013.

 

Oh, and please report where the Advanced Clause or any of these rules are broken.

[Sora1499]

I feel like the new advanced clause is a bit over complex. Most of us who frequent this site do so out of leisure, and I don't think we're too eager to squint at the computer and orally count out every single word, then construct a reply accordingly. It just seems like a bad idea to me.

[Blake]

I feel like the new advanced clause is a bit over complex. Most of us who frequent this site do so out of leisure, and I don't think we're too eager to squint at the computer and orally count out every single word, then construct a reply accordingly. It just seems like a bad idea to me.

There's this thing called Microsoft Word that counts words.

[Althemia]

I feel like the new advanced clause is a bit over complex. Most of us who frequent this site do so out of leisure, and I don't think we're too eager to squint at the computer and orally count out every single word, then construct a reply accordingly. It just seems like a bad idea to me.

http://www.wordcounter.net/
ta fucking da

[L0SS]

I'd be inclined to agree. I try my best to construct justified feedback and criticism. I think, as you said; quality of feedback should come first over an exact quantity. This should really apply on both levels. There are exceptions, but overall; exact counts seem to do little. Just my two cents.

[Blake]

I'd be inclined to agree. I try my best to construct justified feedback and criticism. I think, as you said; quality of feedback should come first over an exact quantity. This should really apply on both levels. There are exceptions, but overall; exact counts seem to do little. Just my two cents.

 

then tell us how to better regulate quality. Just saying it doesn't do the job right doesn't help.

[Althemia]

I'd be inclined to agree. I try my best to construct justified feedback and criticism. I think, as you said; quality of feedback should come first over an exact quantity. This should really apply on both levels. There are exceptions, but overall; exact counts seem to do little. Just my two cents.

We've let RC off the leash a lot of times before, and guess what happened? Post quality decreased. A lot. So no, none of you are allowed privileges because we can't trust you to have a good quality section without these rules in place.

[L0SS]

I understand both of your points, and I see what you mean. Of course moderators don't want to spend heaps of time wading through topics in order to root out the bad ones. I wouldn't either. But I've had short reviews that have had a far better impact on my card design than long ones that don't make the point clear. I think with a longer word count, there is always going to be an aspect of drawing out your review in order to meet the requirements, losing the main message in the process. Having said that, the longer the lore; hopefully the more there is to say about.

Although I feel a review can only be as good as the card you're reviewing. 

 

But maybe I'm thinking to ideally. Ideally, you'd moderate every review; but that wouldn't be humanly possible.

 

I'm more than willing to try it out, I just feel that the quality not quantity rule applies on a macro and a micro scale. 

[Blake]

I understand both of your points, and I see what you mean. Of course moderators don't want to spend heaps of time wading through topics in order to root out the bad ones. I wouldn't either. But I've had short reviews that have had a far better impact on my card design than long ones that don't make the point clear. I think with a longer word count, there is always going to be an aspect of drawing out your review in order to meet the requirements, losing the main message in the process. Having said that, the longer the lore; hopefully the more there is to say about.

Although I feel a review can only be as good as the card you're reviewing. 

 

But maybe I'm thinking to ideally. Ideally, you'd moderate every review; but that wouldn't be humanly possible.

 

I'm more than willing to try it out, I just feel that the quality not quantity rule applies on a macro and a micro scale. 

Again, TELL US HOW TO FIX IT.

 

All you're saying is that we can trust people who have proven to not be trustworthy enough without these rules. I'm not arguing that exceptions don't exist, but the majority does.

 

If you have a more efficient way to push quality, we're all ears, but don't just complain if you have no intent to fix it.

EDIT: Also adding that you MUST post the lore of a card you post to the Clause.

[L0SS]

Again, TELL US HOW TO FIX IT.

 

All you're saying is that we can trust people who have proven to not be trustworthy enough without these rules. I'm not arguing that exceptions don't exist, but the majority does.

 

If you have a more efficient way to push quality, we're all ears, but don't just complain if you have no intent to fix it.

In all honesty, I'd have to give it some more thought.

 

As you guys are the staff here, you certainly know better than me. I just wanted to bring to your attention something that I personally feel applies to card reviews. You're more than qualified to disagree.

 

I wasn't really attempting to fix anything, as this has only just been implemented; it's just something for you to bear in mind and possibly work with. Feel free to say otherwise. If I do think of something, however, I'll let you know.

[Sora1499]

This is just an idea, but instead of a word-based system, how about a rubric-based one? For example, the reviewer must give an example(s) of what role the card would play in the game and/or how it would affect it overall on top of a fix unless no fixes are necessary, in which case it should be stated that a fix is necessary. It's a primitive idea, and far from perfect, but maybe we could build on it.

[Blake]

You mean something you should be doing without being told, that's also not exactly easy to monitor?

[Sora1499]

[quote name="Gangrel" post="6178269" timestamp="1365533492"]You mean something you should be doing without being told, that's also not exactly easy to monitor?[/quote] Well, according to your view on the RC community, it's something that they wouldn't do by default. And I don't think it'd really be THAT hard to monitor: skimming over a reviewer's post for a fix and a reference doesn't seem that difficult to me.

[Blake]

Well, according to your view on the RC community, it's something that they wouldn't do by default. And I don't think it'd really be THAT hard to monitor: skimming over a reviewer's post for a fix and a reference doesn't seem that difficult to me.

Keyword is should. It's part of the AC as well because people DON'T do that.

 

And while there is a lot of Black and White in card design, there is also a good deal of Gray. It's hard to monitor because a lot of reviewing comes down to opinion. Some opinions are more correct than others, but at times it becomes very gray, and then the content cannot be monitored effectively.

[L0SS]

Well, according to your view on the RC community, it's something that they wouldn't do by default. And I don't think it'd really be THAT hard to monitor: skimming over a reviewer's post for a fix and a reference doesn't seem that difficult to me.

You could even make them structure there review in a certain way, and offer a template of some kind; to make this process even easier. For instance:

 

Improvements: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."

 

Good points: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."

 

Bad points: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."

 

Affect on meta: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."

 

That's a very rough idea. Also excuse the copious amounts of Lorem Ipsum.

[Blake]

Card X

Field Spell

Pay 1000 LP: Destroy the Field

 

Improvements: Make it once per turn and destroy 1 card

Good Points: None

Bad Points: It's basically Judgment Dragon as an unrestricted Field Spell

Affect on meta: It's searchable, if not staple worthy, destruction

 

This doesn't tell me anything of worth

The word limit mixes what you want as well as makes it so they have to actually type up thoughts. Fluff is punishable, so it means that they have to cover the bases and fix the card.

[Zazubat]

I have already kind of said my opinion, but after reading some of this, I though I needed to way in on the topic at hand again. Right now, the system seems like it would work for the most part. The thing about longer lores, means more to say. Pretty simple really, but that said, wouldn't that just create a "This part of the effect" and "that part of the effect"? What I mean is that it won't change a thing if it's going to be 20 words with a shorter effect or 60 words with a longer effect. Now, I have been thinking, and I think that it would actually make it longer since you're having more interaction with the different effects, some that might balance or unbalance others in that effect, and other cards that might balance or unbalance it. I think that's how this system would work best, on longer reviews, but not on shorter ones, where there's not as much to say. That said, if we bring back the 50-60 words, that won't change it now will it? So, when I look at this now, I can see how this is probably the best system that we have had so far, but of course, room for improvement.

EDIT:

Card X
Field Spell
Pay 1000 LP: Destroy the Field

Improvements: Make it once per turn and destroy 1 card
Good Points: None
Bad Points: It's basically Judgment Dragon as an unrestricted Field Spell
Affect on meta: It's searchable, if not staple worthy, destruction

This doesn't tell me anything of worth


The word limit mixes what you want as well as makes it so they have to actually type up thoughts. Fluff is punishable, so it means that they have to cover the bases and fix the card.

This is the same damn thing you tried to argue in the status update, look it's not possible to review such a card. It's simply not something that's possible to review, so it's gonna get reported, and then locked where an admin would give a word that you shouldn't make an effect like that. Come up with an effect that's actually worth reviewing, and prove your point with that then.

[L0SS]

Card X

Field Spell

Pay 1000 LP: Destroy the Field

 

Improvements: Make it once per turn and destroy 1 card

Good Points: None

Bad Points: It's basically Judgment Dragon as an unrestricted Field Spell

Affect on meta: It's searchable, if not staple worthy, destruction

 

This doesn't tell me anything of worth

Well, for a start I'd add a rule that states you must write in full sentences. Secondly: like I said, it was a rough guide and more can certainly be added to it/changed. It's just a start, but that is were I would go with it. Not saying you have to, but it's an idea.

[Zazubat]

Well, for a start I'd add a rule that states you must write in full sentences.

I was actually gonna say something like that in the status update, but I was like, is this smart? Won't this limit effects that might be simple, but also actually have something good to say? I don't really know if that's a good idea or not.

[L0SS]

I was actually gonna say something like that in the status update, but I was like, is this smart? Won't this limit effects that might be simple, but also actually have something good to say? I don't really know if that's a good idea or not.

I don't quite understand. Limit effects that might be simple? Reiterate that for me, were you speaking in terms of card effects, or reviews?

[Zazubat]

I don't quite understand. Limit effects that might be simple? Reiterate that for me, were you speaking in terms of card effects, or reviews?

Card Effects. I might actually have misunderstood you, I think you meant the review, I was talking about the card text. But regardless, what I am saying is that it probably wouldn't be a good idea because some effects that are simple are actually reviewable.

[L0SS]

Card Effects. I might actually have misunderstood you, I think you meant the review, I was talking about the card text. But regardless, what I am saying is that it probably wouldn't be a good idea because some effects that are simple are actually reviewable.

Yeah, I meant reviews should be in full sentences. As for effects, they pretty much have to follow OCG text anyway; so that shouldn't be an issue, should it?

[Zazubat]

Yeah, I meant reviews should be in full sentences. As for effects, they pretty much have to follow OCG text anyway; so that shouldn't be an issue, should it?

OCG text? Not quite sure I understand what you mean by that. You mean Official Card Grammar? In that case, I really don't understand what that would have to do with anything.

[L0SS]

OCG text? Not quite sure I understand what you mean by that. You mean Official Card Grammar? In that case, I really don't understand what that would have to do with anything.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I thought you meant that it would be a bad idea to make card effects use full sentences, and I couldn't understand your point as card effects have to follow Official Card Grammar and so anything other than that would have to be sorted out to fit, regardless of length. Do you mean the Op's description of their card?

[Zazubat]

Are we talking about the same thing here? I thought you meant that it would be a bad idea to make card effects use full sentences, and I couldn't understand your point as card effects have to follow Official Card Grammar and so anything other than that would have to be sorted out to fit, regardless of length. Do you mean the Op's description of their card?

I uhm, think we should stop here, I don't think neither of us understand each others points, and it would just end up in spam.

Anyways, let's talk about something else. Like this "Bimonthly Yu-Gi-Oh! test card". I would like some more detail on that if possible.