No jokez, y'all.
So, who's happy with the current system? I know that quite a lot of people get the feeling that the Adeptship is largely a best-friends-club for East Coasters; they make up an overwhelming majority of the membership, it seems, while the West Coast, the Midlands, Europe, etc., are underrepresented. I know the problem is particularly bad because even East Coasters think that there's too many East Coasters.
Here's an idea I've been pondering. Suppose we set up the Adept system like Adepts did something really relevant (what relevant things they should do could come later- I think going back to a voting system on DTB could be advantageous, for instance), and we simply run it as an election. Each person casts a certain number of votes for the people they think are best fitted to adeptship, and the top 15 or 21 or some odd number for tie-breaker purposes become Adepts. Obviously this is, by definition, a popularity contest, but I think that popularity on the Source is based largely on two qualities that are deeply relevant to what we want from Adepts anyway (eloquence and knowledge of the format). I think at any rate, this fights the natural tendency we have going where Adeptship is determined largely by East Coasters, and thus tends to include more East Coasters that those deciding on membership are more familiar with.
Now, obviously this is actually up to the Admins, not members, but I am curious to find out what people think. Are people happy with the system as currently set up, or would a special effort to balance the Adeptship more geographically be worthwhile?
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Or you could just eliminate the entire system, because I have never seen it serve any purpose aside from different colored names and inflating egos.
But that's just me, I suppose.
Originally Posted by nedleeds
I don't think there is really a system at all to be honest. A few certain guys get to talk about things in the format and I'll speak for a lot of people and say that not many read the Adept Q&A because it is very empowering of the "adepts" to ask questions that only they can answer. I think it's silly. I would much rather have another forum where topics are picked by all the members and then discussed with very tight moderation so everyone can focus on the topic at hand. I do believe that a voting system wouldn't work very well because naturally everyone is gonna vote for whoever they hang out with on Sundays and nothing will really get done. I don't want to badger I just think that if you are labeled an adept you should probably spend more time in the Format Discussion and New and Developmental forums than the Mish Mash, ya know what I mean? I do think we should try something new and that's not up to me or you but the admins so we'll see what's going on. I like your ideas IBA.
This is my Signature
But I like my ego being inflated...
This is somewhat true, but I think there are some issues where membership input could be useful. Towards this end, it would seem desirable to have a group that can be relied on to have the interests of the membership and perhaps better judgment, such as for determing DTBs, perhaps dealing with suggestions to the alteration of the site at large in some way, the currently-entropied Ask-an-Adept section, etc...
Also, while I think many people don't care, a number of people clearly do consider the Adept system to be an encouragement for them to try and increase the quaity of their posting. While I'm not sure if the importance placed on Adeptship isn't entirely misguided, I don't know if this is an incentive that should be dismissed lightly.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
Honestly, the adept system seems to provide nothing but a private message board for friends and a forum where they can provide answers to questions that I can bitch about when I go to tournaments. As I already have a message board for my friends (and AIM) and I rather like talking about some of the opinions I see in the ask the adepts forum it can just stay as-is. It's not like when an adept top8s a tournament he receives anything extra (besides unicorn showers, but I don't think I'd want those anyway).
Okay. I can see already that I was wrong about something. The first discussion, perhaps, should be what function Adepts even serve, if any. Is it a friendly circle jerk? And if it is, should it be anything else? Is it useful as a mostly meaningless pat on the back and forum to play MMM, encouraging people to post better and earn said status, or should it be done away with if there's not to be a functional use to such a pool of "elite" members?
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
I like the concept of the adepts and the current system. I've seen it awarded to people who, in my opinion, deserve it. Nihil, Bryant, Zach, Pinder, and IBA are all people who I've seen insight in even before I was aware of the adept system. If all it does is serve as a reward, then that's fine too. Those people deserve the reward.
Some thoughts of mine:
I do think there should be a little more in terms of voting on the Decks to Beat, etc.
If you'd like to see a particular question get answered, PM Bardo/PR/Nightmare, etc, and I'm sure they'd be happy to post it as the question of the week (assuming it isn't a question like "When do you think Tarmogoyf will get banned?").
Something else to note, there was quite a bit of behind the scenes work for the upcoming 5th Anniversary tournament on the part of the Adepts. If nothing else, I'm glad to have been able to support the 5th Anniversary tournament.
This is what it was always supposed to be, Jack, and I'm fairly sure you are aware of that. It was always meant to be a group of people who were deemed to have a better hold on the format than the population at large that could give a helping hand or fresh pair of eyes on development, provide input to the mod staff about changes to the site, and share thoughts and tech about the format amongst themselves and the rest of the userbase. This was the reason I know a lot of people cleaned their acts up, so they could strive towards Adept-hood. As of late, it has grown a bit decadent. Adepts thoughts don't always carry the weight that they should in a discussion, but that's partially because the adept-membership has been growing a lot as of late. Regardless of if it was for performance in tournaments, exemplary posting and format contributions, or providing us with hot chicks... I think that the roles of the Adepts and what they are supposed to provide the site have been lost and the title doesn't really mean much... Except the adept lounge. That place can be funnier than Mish-Mash when it gets going.
I'd love to see a wiping of the Adept slate clean, followed by a whole-scale and entirely unbiased, objective vote of the sites userbase as to whom shows exemplary knowledge of Legacy theory, at least a passable knowledge of deckbuilding (lets face it, even the best strategists and theorists don't always have the deckbuilding know-how), some playskill (perhaps the hardest unit to measure), and be able and willing to spend time in Established and N&D giving opinions on decks that show potential. The Adepts currently are shrouded in such apathy, for the most part, that it's more entertaning to sit in MM or on the Adept boards playing MMM because of the insanely high Signal : Noise ratio in the actual format boards. If some of the moderation was tightened, and the above could happen objectively, I think the site would be right back on track to staying in the forefront of Legacy innovation and information while giving the sense of meaning Adepthood has back, and thus giving people something to strive for.
Now, I know that is not exactly the most plausible thing to do... but I do feel strongly that Adepthood doesn't really mean dick outside of a forum that a lot of people don't read because they don't give two shits about Adepts opinions on if Dreadstill is good or not, and the Adept Lounge. That's it.
Team Albany: What's Legacy?
You cannot know the sweetness of Victory, without first dwelling in the agony of Defeat.
I say have it done by tournament success, and rating... The most consistently well-placing individuals deserve to be recognized as what they are, superior.
It is unfortunate for those who have no local/big legacy events to fall on, but no system is perfect, and people without tournament experience will generally know less than others with tournament experience.
I think this is the most non-biased way to get the best of the best into the Adept status.
Basically, each adept needs to keep a specific win ratio at tournaments, have a quota of tournaments played a month (at least 4 IMO), and of coarse win/place (although winning should be more of a factor here) a majority of those said tournaments.
This is my opinion, and it would take a little bit more work, but I think it is the best possible system.
The problem is that being an Adept here also entails active and worthwhile membership. If you're a great player, then good-for-you. We can make a thread that says you're great. However, what does that do for this site and the format? An Adept, under your suggestion, could T8 100 tournies and not make a post. How does this help the format or site?
Another problem with this (at least ratings wise) is that many tournaments, at least the ones I've gone to in the San Francisco Bay Area, aren't sanctioned. I don't know how much of a problem that is elsewhere, but areas where there's only a small but tightly knit Legacy community may have trouble sanctioning their events.
And I say that we have it based on the number of F's I's and N's in each user's name.
Clearly tournament success is one guage. But not the only one. I only mention the following as an example to make my case, freakaccident. If you make top8 every week in your meta, it does not change the fact that you hadn't figured out how or why priority functions.Of course, understanding of the rules also is not a complete measure either. So we would need something flexible.
EDIT:And also, I believe that the position should be a revolving one. We would need new blood constantly to balance the jaded opinions that naturally come with the position over time.
I really don't like that system. It is completely unfair to people who have made a significant impact on the format and certainly deserve their adept status, but don't get to go to many tournaments (e.g. Eldariel). Also, tournament success isn't necessarily a measure of qualification. Someone can be very good with one deck, and consistantly place with it, but that doesn't mean they have any insight into actually theory/deckbuilding/etc.
What was wrong with the simple once-a-year vote idea again?
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
The best players usually know what they are doing, and it can simply give people a basis to go off of...
I would gladly post up results and answer questions given to me from other source members curious about my constant success.
Understanding why and how people are able to consistently do well in this format will eventually get everyone to a level playing field...
I am not saying my idea is right or not, but it is an idea.
At this point, that is what we need, ideas.
EDIT:
What was wrong with the simple once-a-year vote idea again?
Nothing at all, just giving other alternatives to think about.
EDIT #2:
I really don't like that system. It is completely unfair to people who have made a significant impact on the format and certainly deserve their adept status, but don't get to go to many tournaments (e.g. Eldariel). Also, tournament success isn't necessarily a measure of qualification. Someone can be very good with one deck, and consistantly place with it, but that doesn't mean they have any insight into actually theory/deckbuilding/etc.
Your point is very valid, but I think everyone agrees that a new system is in order...
Also, have a specialized expert on a specific archtype isn't necessarily a bad thing (although I never play the same thing twice in a row).
I totally see where you are coming from though, it would be unfair to a degree, as it would leave some people out of the runnings, but doesn't this happen with the current system already?
EDIT #3:
The problem is that being an Adept here also entails active and worthwhile membership. If you're a great player, then good-for-you. We can make a thread that says you're great. However, what does that do for this site and the format? An Adept, under your suggestion, could T8 100 tournies and not make a post. How does this help the format or site?
You could set a quota, and have interactive threads kind of like the adept QnA, except have the actual players ask the questions for adepts to answer openly.
This would ensure a good amount of posting, and essentially force interactivity.
Why do we need ideas? Are you trying to say that there's something particularly wrong with the system? Too many adepts? Like 60% of them east-coasters? Or is the problem that you aren't an adept yourself?
Seriously, folks. If you want to be a candidate for Adeptship, clean up your posting, don't be an asshat, and put up results (this step not necessarily needed). Also, not pissing off adepts, admins, or mods helps too (as these are the folks who nominate and vote you in).
In short, if you want to be an adept, behave like one. And re-read those rules in Bardo's rules thread for the site. There have been a couple recent changes.
The E.P.I.C. Syndicate: I mean, if they play a lullaby for babies they should at least play the Monster Mash when somebody dies.
Personally, I'd love to get rid of the titles and change all user names to dark blue, even the mods/admins. I think it would be a worthwhile experiment: let the strength of every poster's idea be judged on its own merit and not subtely influenced by being teal, dark blue, red or whatever color the mod names are (purple/brown = burple?). I would totally be down for that.
(Note that I don't think permissions should change, mods could still close/delete threads, warn users, etc., adepts could still post in the LA Lounge, but you couldn't rest on your laurels, so to speak, at least publicly.)
I was about to propose this idea to the other mods last night, then sorta forgot. What does everyone else think?
For the record, Jack, I was not referring to you.
As I said, I have never seen the Adept system as serving any real purpose. It's a bunch of people who, in theory, are supposed to know more about the format than anyone else. That screams of being completely self-serving and unnecessary to me (among other things), and it sertainly seems like a circle-jerk. So, I don't see the point of having such a system, personally.
I do want to say that I have no real problems with ~90% of the Adepts, just a very select few, so my opposition has nothing to do with that.
EDIT: Agreed with Bardo, since I was going to suggest the same thing, but he posted it right before I did.
Adepts are basically whoever has been here the longest and biggest postwhores, basically anyone with a high post count or buddies of the mods...seems like a really dumb and pointless system to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote