[YCM]Possible Change to TCG section rules

[Blake]

Teams have done nothing but help players to improve exponentially on DGz. The idea wouldn't be to shove all the best players on YCM onto a single team, but to spread them out evenly . There'd be a team recruitment thread and the like, and as the moderator of the section, it's not hard for you to drop in and check people aren't getting the shaft.

It's about competing against each other to improve at the game while also forming closer knot mini-communities, in the long run.

Teams could even have their own private sections, like Team Vibrant and Team Nocturne in GFX, which have improved GFX, from what I've seen. Post count on or off is up to you, and teams could have private discussions for gameplans and such when Skype, etc. isn't readily available, especially for people in separate Time Zones, not to mention a smaller, more fine tuned discussions on cards and the like with particular ideas they don't want to leak to other members, necessarily, until they can show them off and test them in a war.

[Not-so-Radiant Arin]

Except YCM is too egotistical and immature because "I WANT TO BE ON THAT TEAM BECAUSE IT HAS X PERSON! U FGGTS" shenanigans may arise.

 

Thoughts and detail matter when putting up a Topic. Take for example, my Secret Agent threads lately. That has just a little bit more flare to it, but it's really just a way to lighten the mood on a fantastic card. Everyone knows Venus has the effect to SS a Gachi from the Deck for 1k LP, so why not bring a little bit more flare into the mix?

[Catterjune]

Back again to save the day citizens!

Re: "But... teams!"

Let's save that conversation for another day in another topic. It has too many parts to it to give it proper space in a topic like this.

Re: "Why now?"

Why not now?



So overall it seems the general consensus is to give the plan the go ahead. I'll put it into the rules either late night today or early tomorrow morning. I'll keep this topic open should anyone have one final thing to add, to bring up one major thing I've overlooked, but assuming nothing out of the ordinary comes up, it'll be a rule by this time tomorrow.

[Catterjune]

Now part of the rules, and OH LET'S SAY a week to get it sorted out before moderations go out regarding it. Keeping this topic open for another... idk, 24 hours if people think my wording is strange or something else needs changing.

[Althemia]

Now part of the rules, and OH LET'S SAY a week to get it sorted out before moderations go out regarding it. Keeping this topic open for another... idk, 24 hours if people think my wording is strange or something else needs changing.

How are you going to do that now that you're perma'd though :(

[evilfusion]

That was an unexpected twist.

 

I'm probably going to take over TCG until further notice in terms of a replacement, since we kind of NEED a mod for that section.

[Azuh]

Wow what happened to Hatcher? The new rule took the toll :P

[玄魔の王]

Evilfusion for pres- I mean mod!

[Just Crouton]

The American people approve of Evilfusion.

[Zazubat]

This isn't really the topic for who should be the new mod, this is about the rules in regard to that. So, should the rules still stay or not? I still think so, even if I dislike what Hatcher has done.

[玄魔の王]

I think if we want this rule we need to more clearly define what is and is not acceptable commentary in the OP.

[evilfusion]

I never understood why such a rule didn't exist originally. I see no reason not to keep the proposed change, but yes, it should probably be better defined. I'll probably draft something out.

[Zazubat]

I think if we want this rule we need to more clearly define what is and is not acceptable commentary in the OP.

"When starting a discussion topic, the topic creator must provide some basic direction towards where the conversation goes in the first post. To put it bluntly, gone are the days when you can put down a card's name, a url, an image, and a copypasta of it's effect. Failure to comply will result in a warn increase." I think it's clear enough.

[玄魔の王]

No, I mean what's enough quantity and clarity of commentary to not be worth a warn?

[Zazubat]

No, I mean what's enough quantity and clarity of commentary to not be worth a warn?

Not doing this:

Image
Lore
Discuss

And more doing this :
I think this card is good/bad because of X, and I have been/thinking of playing this in Y, and this card works well in Z.
Image
Lore
Discuss

[evilfusion]

No, I mean what's enough quantity and clarity of commentary to not be worth a warn?

 

I'd probably consider almost anything that can conceivably start a discussion.

 

For example, if the topic is Galaxy-Eyes Photon Dragon.

 

Posting the name, picture/link, and saying "discuss" or "inb4evilfusion" and nothing else is not okay.

 

Posting the name, picture/link, a pic of an epic win using Galaxy-Eyes, explaining the aforementioned epic win, and ending with "discuss/inb4evilfusion" is fine. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but you can see how even a minimalistic increase of content might make a discussion better than just waving a card in front of someone's face.

[Zazubat]

Basically, if you something to say about it, it should pretty much be allowed, as long as it's not "lolbroken". That would be fair enough for everybody to follow.

[newhat]

^{It's good to promote discussion by holding high standards, but I think this would kill the TCG section.}

[Zazubat]

^{It's good to promote discussion by holding high standards, but I think this would kill the TCG section.}

People who post nothing probably don't deserve to be in TCG section then. And for new cards, maybe there can be an exception, since they probably will have less to say about them, but then again, you could at least try to say somthing.

[Aerion Brightflame]

^{It's good to promote discussion by holding high standards, but I think this would kill the TCG section.}

 

Quality over Quantity.

 

And frankly, it will improve it just on the merits of making people think about new cards.

 

It's done something for DNF and DGz. So why not here? If people can't put the effort it, obviously they didn't have anything to say about the card.

[Toffee.]

As far as the "Your OP needs some actual content" goes.... Meh, I can live with it.

^{It's good to promote discussion by holding high standards, but I think this would kill the TCG section.}

The Custom Cards sections have high standards, and we still see stock "cool cards lol"-posts.

[evilfusion]

^{It's good to promote discussion by holding high standards, but I think this would kill the TCG section.}

 

It's not even raising the bar that high. And at worst, the penalty is a warn. It's not a topic lock, so the rest of the thread can continue as normal.

 

This could also reduce the topics that cannot contribute anything. Like if you're going to post a random Normal monster, say...Insect Knight (and that's much easier to discuss than something like Petit Dragon), you could pre-emptively mention Rescue Rabbit, the EARTH Attribute, whether being Insect helps it. There's a lot you can say with it (as with Level 4 Normal Monster). But it's better to do that than just post the pic of Insect Knight and tell people to talk about it.

[玄魔の王]

Mr Speaker, we are for the big. By which I mean the rule. I don't like how overly-strict some of the rules in Created Cards became, but this is a good one here.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

^{It's good to promote discussion by holding high standards, but I think this would kill the TCG section.}

I don't think it would hurt anybody to have to actually talk about a card a tiny bit.

[evilfusion]

For the record, Hatcher had added the rule already, sometime earlier today prior to the loss.