The Rules have been Updated

[Blake]

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.

What would you like to know?

 

It's just a twice-a-month test that rewards you for doing well and the only penalty is getting told how and why you're wrong when the thread closes, which'll probably be the Monday after the thread is posted.

 

You can get reps or more if you do well enough. You assess the flavor, design, balance, impact, fixes if any, and so forth.

 

The first card is already made, but it's not time for the assessment yet.

[L0SS]

What would you like to know?

 

It's just a twice-a-month test that rewards you for doing well and the only penalty is getting told how and why you're wrong when the thread closes, which'll probably be the Monday after the thread is posted.

 

You can get reps or more if you do well enough. You assess the flavor, design, balance, impact, fixes if any, and so forth.

 

The first card is already made, but it's not time for the assessment yet.

That list you just gave, is sort of what I was getting at with the review template thing. Could you not use an example of such a review, and break it down into chunks for users to asses and to mould their review around?

 

Not to the point of a rigid formula, but a bare minimum to be covered, with expansion on top of that.

 

I thought I'd bring it up as you reminded me of it; feel free to point out any (and I'm sure there are) flaws. The card test is a nice incentive for people to brush up on their review skills.

[Blake]

That list you just gave, is sort of what I was getting at with the review template thing. Could you not use an example of such a review, and break it down into chunks for users to asses and to mould their review around?

 

Not to the point of a rigid formula, but a bare minimum to be covered, with expansion on top of that.

 

I thought I'd bring it up as you reminded me of it; feel free to point out any (and I'm sure there are) flaws. The card test is a nice incentive for people to brush up on their review skills.

That's the thing. We've tried making that the only rule. It doesn't go anywhere. You still get short ass posts of "It's like JD and I don't like it" or w/e with a simple fix and a rating, which is what's frowned on.

 

I'd rather not have a word limit myself, but when people would post, say, a sentence or 2 on a giant card there's a problem.

[L0SS]

Pint druken. Point taken. And besides, this is a fresh idea and newly implemented, so I've no need to worry about it unless it seems problematic. If it has a positive effect on the content of replies in RC, then you're doing the right thing. Sir, yes sir.

[megamike]

I think the advance clause is a little rash.

Some people want to know the opinion of others, like if someone likes the card/cards or not, and things like that, you should let people express their opinion once, then, if they want to continue comenting some topic,they should forfield the advance clause.

 

Just an opinion, I'm a new user and I admit I can be rong of course.

 

(sorry for any grammar/speling errors, I not english)

[Blake]

I think the advance clause is a little rash.

Some people want to know the opinion of others, like if someone likes the card/cards or not, and things like that, you should let people express their opinion once, then, if they want to continue comenting some topic,they should forfield the advance clause.

 

Just an opinion, I'm a new user and I admit I can be rong of course.

 

(sorry for any grammar/speling errors, I not english)

Not sure what you mean.

 

The Advanced Clause only applies to the initial post someone makes in a thread. It's not a constant.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Well, it's nice to have the word limit become dependent on the card itself for a change. It doesn't force you to over-analyze a card that doesn't have much on it. I'd be interested to see how cards with large effects will play out. Also, I'm surprised Written Cards is being tossed into the Advanced Clause this time around (hope I didn't read anything wrong). And about Card Contests, 1 rep prize for a regular contest? May I ask why that is the case? Just a bit odd to me that it'd go down to 1v1 levels.

 

Overall, it's nice that the rules have finally been redone. TBH, I've actually been waiting for this to be done since I've felt that it needed to get done. Thank you very much.

[Resident Fascist]

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.

 

Generally if you're giving enough good criticism your post will meet the word standard anyway, I can't type a good review of a card in less than 40~ words, to be honest. Can you? This post is 40 words long.

[Zazubat]

Generally if you're giving enough good criticism your post will meet the word standard anyway, I can't type a good review of a card in less than 40~ words, to be honest. Can you? This post is 40 words long.

It is so as well. Congrats on that. And yes, that's what it is for most, but there's without a doubt gonna be people are gonna fill their review with useless comments to fill it out, but for now it's okay as it is. This post is 50 words long.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

And yes, that's what it is for most, but there's without a doubt gonna be people are gonna fill their review with useless comments to fill it out

 

You called? 

 

Anyway, the logical side of my mind is really happy for these changes, as we might see some quality posts and cards here on RC. Then again, I'm a bit saddened that my trolling days are now over. However, I still like the previous word count just a bit better. Maybe it's the feeling that some new members are going to abuse it in threads whose cards only have a short effect, or when someone posts a card with an overly convoluted wording. 

[Zazubat]

Maybe it's the feeling that some new members are going to abuse it in threads whose cards only have a short effect, or when someone posts a card with an overly convoluted wording. 

But isn't it like that already? New memebers will never follow the AC before they are told (after 100 posts, a thing I think should be right away, so they don't fall into a bad review zone IMO).

[Blake]

Note that this is also intended to push people away from short effects like "Gains 400 ATK", because then they won't get a review.

However, a card like "You can tribute this card: Draw 2 Cards, then end your turn" is still short, but provokes conversation nonetheless.

[Zazubat]

"You can tribute this card: Draw 2 Cards, then end your turn" is still short, but provokes conversation nonetheless.

This. It's important that we don't just characterize an effect as short = not worth reviewing.

EDIT: Something I think you should add is "Post fixed version of your cards in the first post instead of in a new post". It's annoying that I try to review something, but it's not the most current version. It also gets users easy posts. Or is this unneeded? I would personally like to have it, though if you find any reason not to, be sure to tell.

[A Hollow Man]

Having the mandatory reply length scale with the length of the card's text encourages people to make cards with those stupid laundry lists of five barely-related effects in microscopic font because it will get them longer replies, and that sort of bad design is already popular enough as it stands. Longer lores doesn't necessarily mean more to say when you're looking at the whole of a card instead of each individual clause. In fact, "the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts" is the kind of bad thinking that leads to that sort of laundry list effect in the first place, since it assumes that if one effect is good, five effects must be five times as good.

 

It's also not possible to copy-paste the text of a .jpg into a word-counter.

 

Make the mandatory reply length a static number.

[Blake]

Having the mandatory reply length scale with the length of the card's text encourages people to make cards with those stupid laundry lists of five barely-related effects in microscopic font because it will get them longer replies, and that sort of bad design is already popular enough as it stands. Longer lores doesn't necessarily mean more to say when you're looking at the whole of a card instead of each individual clause. In fact, "the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts" is the kind of bad thinking that leads to that sort of laundry list effect in the first place, since it assumes that if one effect is good, five effects must be five times as good.

Tell me why you're required to comment on a card like that? If anything, it punishes people for those cards.
 

It's also not possible to copy-paste the text of a .jpg into a word-counter.

PSST. THERE'S A RULE THAT SAYS YOU MUST POST LORE.

Make the mandatory reply length a static number.

You've offered no reason to do so, and this non-static has gotten a better reception than static ones... So no.

[A Hollow Man]

Tell me why you're required to comment on a card like that? If anything, it punishes people for those cards.

In your previous post, you said the rule was designed to punish people for making effects too short. Which is it?

 

e: I also don't see how silence is going to help people learn more than actually being advised not to make laundry list effects.

[Blake]

In your previous post, you said the rule was designed to punish people for making effects too short. Which is it?

It punishes both really long and really short cards that don't encourage actual thought. The design was to punish short, but long was a happy side effect noticed later.

e: I also don't see how silence is going to help people learn more than actually being advised not to make laundry list effects.

So, not getting comments doesn't teach people not to do things? Taught people not to make super long sets well enough.

A card should be able to be discussed equal to or more than its card count easily.

[A Hollow Man]

Silence is a poor teaching instrument. Math classes aren't taught by having the teacher sit there staring at the students until they figure out how math works on their own.

 

It doesn't even punish short cards that don't provoke actual thought because a short card can be responded to even if there's nothing much to say about it. If you want to reward cards that provoke thought and punish cards that don't, why tie it to length?

[Blake]

Silence is a poor teaching instrument. Math classes aren't taught by having the teacher sit there staring at the students until they figure out how math works on their own.
 
It doesn't even punish short cards that don't provoke actual thought because a short card can be responded to even if there's nothing much to say about it. If you want to reward cards that provoke thought and punish cards that don't, why tie it to length?

Then explain to me how it has taught people not to post huge sets.

Those thoughtless comments get hidden and warned, so it effectively does punish them.

Tying it to length is a test to see if it works better than static. So far, it does.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

And about Card Contests, 1 rep prize for a regular contest? May I ask why that is the case? Just a bit odd to me that it'd go down to 1v1 levels.

 

May I get this part addressed, please?

[Shinobi Phoenix]

OK, I have some time and I saw this and I'm trying to avoid posting more than I want to, but part of me wants to comment on quite a few problems I see (just to be clear, post length is not one of them).  Mostly in the application of all this versus how it is intended to be used versus what the intention of all this was in the first place.

 

 

However, I will actually hold back for now and ask about just TWO things right now that directly affect me.

 

 

[spoiler=Case 1]

- The clause about not being allowed (regardless of reason, quality, effort, or theme/aesthetics) to not be able to post any monsters that are DIVINE or Divine-Beast or any cards that support them.  What is actually the purpose of them outside of preventing already (so-called) "bad designers" from making them?  Being disallowed from using them doesn't make them not make bad cards.  I myself rarely make use DIVINE or Divine-Beast, but I have when necessary for theme -or- tactically but still in theme and was actually used as NERF (usually done BECAUSE lack of support limited the use of the card and things the card could take advantage of); it made sense to me.  I have an older 60-card set I finished in 2010 (long after DIVINE and Divine-Beast were declared legal) that I have wanted to post here lately due to wanting to play it on Duel Portal to test the decks made from it fully (never posted due to lack of proxy images for various thematic reasons and people ignore the Written Cards section).  It's a Angels vs Demons set with Angels (mainly the Seraphim), Thunder, and Divine-Beast being one side and Demons, Machines, and Psychics being the other.  As such, each Type on a "team" is used to represent a thematic and tactical role on their respective side, with Angels being the Seraphim and thus the "soldiers", Thunder being mindless will-lacking divine construct and Divine-Beasts were major divine creatures who weren't angels (not as high as Seraphim, but still more than the Constructs and have wills of their own), like phoenixes and cherubs.  The same goes for the Demons side who have DIVINE monsters (not-Divine Beast, you'd have to know the story for why).  Thematically, there aren't many Divine-Beasts (or DIVINE) or intention of having that many or slapping it on arbitrarily. Regardless, it was important thematically, I always have a pre-story written for my sets (ala Magic the Gathering) and using anything else instead with such a tightly woven and researched story it has to fit into would be a crime.  Nothing of it was done "just because".  This just one immediate major example but I have others I also cannot post constructed for similar reasons.

 

That said... you're telling me that after all that work and with all this talk about higher standards and work ethic and putting in a true effort and wishing people would response appropriately to someone who actually puts that much work in that I can't even post this set (at least not fully) because some of the cards are DIVINE, Divine-Beast, or support cards that include support for them (not of them suppose ONLY Divine-Beast, because that's not how the theme works).  I'd have to post an incomplete set or not post it at all or it's treated "unrealistic"  like someone who just made up some bullcrap God card because someone ELSE keeps making up bullcrap God cards.  A bad card is a bad card regardless of what is it made from, but maybe we shouldn't punish people who actually make a GOOD well-invested use of something?[/spoiler]

 

 

I don't expect a rule change, but I definitely need to put my say out there because this does infringe on my ability to post my work that I have put a lot of effort and my little free time into fairly.  Some nuance and semblance of case-by-case should be applied to this.

 

 

 

 

(Update 1: 2013-04-14 8:11PM) And now since it took so long just for me to get to post this up (been up and down away from my machine all day), I won't post the other concern until later, maybe if this one is addressed.

 

Update 2:  2013-04-15 4:08PM) I didn't even get it posted when I intended to (just left the page and my post open all night while I was out), so I will just ignore my own second issue for now as well and just start with this one.

[Blake]

No. Divine Cards are not realistic. It isn't due to bad designers, it's due to the fact it just ISN'T realistic.

 

It's reserved for 4 cards in the game. The God Cards and their "fusion". It's basically a status symbol.

 

It has everything to do with the game's flavor.

[Just Crouton]

I'm lost. Where can we post our own CGs? Either of the Other TCGs sections?

[Blake]

I'm lost. Where can we post our own CGs? Either of the Other TCGs sections?

I'd say Written Other, at least for the time being.

 

@Striker: Keep forgetting that... Will try to discuss with Lily tomorrow.

[Just Crouton]

I'd say Written Other, at least for the time being.

 

@Striker: Keep forgetting that... Will try to discuss with Lily tomorrow.

_____

 

Oh, okay. Thanks.