The Adept System (SB) [Archive]

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-25-2008, 06:08 PM

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?

TheAardvark

08-25-2008, 06:23 PM

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.

The Rack

08-25-2008, 06:27 PM

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.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-25-2008, 06:29 PM

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.

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.

emidln

08-25-2008, 06:35 PM

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).

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-25-2008, 06:41 PM

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?

Sanguine Voyeur

08-25-2008, 06:45 PM

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.

freakish777

08-25-2008, 06:46 PM

Some thoughts of mine:

I do think there should be a little more in terms of voting on the Decks to Beat, etc.

not many read the Adept Q&A because it is very empowering of the "adepts" to ask questions that only they can answer.

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.

Sims

08-25-2008, 06:49 PM

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.

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.

thefreakaccident

08-25-2008, 07:32 PM

Peter_Rotten

08-25-2008, 07:46 PM

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.

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?

Aggro_zombies

08-25-2008, 07:52 PM

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.

Finn

08-25-2008, 07:52 PM

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.
It all comes down to which of you speaks up first, if you declare attackers and he proceeds to state he is activating his deed, you cannot do anything about it, if you just straight up say, Krosan grip, tap your lands and then target deed, then you get to proceed to beat face.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.

KillemallCFH

08-25-2008, 07:55 PM

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.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.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-25-2008, 07:57 PM

What was wrong with the simple once-a-year vote idea again?

thefreakaccident

08-25-2008, 07:59 PM

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.

Zach Tartell

08-25-2008, 08:06 PM

At this point, that is what we need, ideas.

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.

Bardo

08-25-2008, 08:11 PM

TheAardvark

08-25-2008, 08:12 PM

But I like my ego being inflated...

For the record, Jack, I was not referring to you.

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?

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.

Tenant_Tron

08-25-2008, 08:13 PM

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.

Michael Keller

08-25-2008, 08:14 PM

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).

With all due respect to the other Adepts, I am more than certain I fulfilled my candidacy for an Adept status as it pertains to each and every one of the guidelines. I mean, there are some folks on here (no names) who are Adepts that use poor grammar and the occasional unnecessary tone and yet they seem to hold in high regard their status above the community.

After careful consideration, however, I thought to myself that I don't need a highlighted name and access to a particular forum to prove what kind of individual I am anymore. I paid my dues, improved well over 100% of my game and posting frequency and it still wasn't enough. So for those looking to become an Adept, it really isn't worth your time.

Everyone is your peer and everyone is your critic. That's the irony.

Politics.

Nihil Credo

08-25-2008, 08:23 PM

I know that when I started lurking this site (sometime in 2006) the "colour guide" was quite helpful in letting me figure out which of two well-spoken people was more likely to be talking out of his ass. Not saying the then-Adept was always right, but I definitely noticed a correlation.

If I could implement one change on MTGTS, it would be experimenting with a Slashdot-like popular moderation guide (each single post can be voted +1 or -1 by each member). Starting out with Mish-Mash for testing purposes, then if it works try it in Community / Format Development, and if it really looks good extend it to the deck threads.

Downsides: can promote groupthink, probably unsupported by board software.
Upsides: massively reduces mods/admins workload, can promote good posting in a much smoother way than yearly elections.

Sims

08-25-2008, 08:51 PM

0 idea. Explain?

Slashdot kind of rating system... Think along the lines of Youtube or Thottbot. You can rate the post +1 or -1 depending upon the content of the post. After a post hits a certain negative level, it either hides itself or gets deleted. It gives the userbase a way of self-modding the forums to lighten the workload of the admins and would provide another method of basing adepthood based on overall post ratings.

Doesn't stop some asshats who have too much free time and friends from mass -1'ing posts that are made just because people don't like the idea contained within said post.

Oh, and that when he first got here he noticed there was a correlation between people with Light Blue names, dark blue names, and the "speaking out of ass level. In general, the speaking out of ass level probably declined in the LB posts. Not always, I'm sure, but in general. But I'm prety sure you were asking more about the slashdot styled system.

Jaiminho

08-25-2008, 08:57 PM

For me, I think the status of Adept in a deck discussion adds nothing, since there are some that are simply too arrogant to acknowledge errors and things alike without getting morally shaken and starting a flame war. Reading and ignoring is the best way to deal with bad posters, while the inverse of that is the best way to know when good content might be there. If it's good to keep the Adept Louge, then do as Bardo suggested and color everyone equally. It does much more for the forums than the actual system.

EDIT:

Doesn't stop some asshats who have too much free time and friends from mass -1'ing posts that are made just because people don't like the idea contained within said post.

I don't know if the forum could support this, but it might be worthwhile to set a range for the ratio of bad and good ratings given. That range is to be noted as good rating behavior. This forces rating good posts as good while also rating bad posts as bad, instead of doing only one.

thefreakaccident

08-25-2008, 08:58 PM

This thread is simply going to go downhill from here, as it seems that two of the more chill adepts (wasted/Tartelli) are getting quite upset.

I understand why you guys are upset, but you should look at it from other's perspectives as well.

Posting things like:

The people whining could create a worthwhile deck or post in threads that are relevant, with some intelligence and understanding. Maybe then, just maybe, you too can be a cool kid and have you're name in Light Blue.

Makes it seem like you feel your posts are better than others, which feeds that feeling others are having, and that is that you look down on non-adept posters.

I am not trying to start a war, just point out the obvious, as usual.

Michael Keller

08-25-2008, 09:07 PM

For me, I think the status of Adept in a deck discussion adds nothing, since there are some that are simply too arrogant to acknowledge errors and things alike without getting morally shaken and starting a flame war. Reading and ignoring is the best way to deal with bad posters, while the inverse of that is the best way to know when good content might be there. If it's good to keep the Adept Louge, then do as Bardo suggested and color everyone equally. It does much more for the forums than the actual system.

There seems to be no benefit from being an Adept on The Source than a "standard poster". Everyone shares their thoughts and creativity in the same forums, it's just that some have more difficulty posting logically and properly in the more developed forums. I've seen decks in the Developmental Forum just vanish into obscurity from the lack of support by those who should be willing to assist others that don't have the experience or posting quality they do.

I'm not saying Adepts should be "teachers", but I once heard that with great power comes great responsibility. And if you want to get your title crayoned in sky-blue, you should be willing to help others on a more educational level than useless rambling about how "cool" it is to chill on the 28th-floor penthouse.

Peter_Rotten

08-25-2008, 09:25 PM

This is sorta going no place. I'll clean this up a bit while my guild is busy wiping in Hyjal.

Rood

08-25-2008, 09:26 PM

The point system seemed to be the best way, to me. I think it should rely on 50% on how good your tournament results are you put up and the other half on how active and helpful you are on the forums.

08-25-2008, 09:29 PM

I'm not saying Adepts should be "teachers", but I once heard that with great power comes great responsibility. And if you want to get your title crayoned in sky-blue, you should be willing to help others on a more educational level than useless rambling about how "cool" it is to chill on the 28th-floor penthouse.

Please, dear God, stop quoting movies in attempt to get a point across. Especially those who are so cliche it's almost embarassing to read lol.

Slashdot kind of rating system... Think along the lines of Youtube or Thottbot. You can rate the post +1 or -1 depending upon the content of the post. After a post hits a certain negative level, it either hides itself or gets deleted. It gives the userbase a way of self-modding the forums to lighten the workload of the admins and would provide another method of basing adepthood based on overall post ratings.

Doesn't stop some asshats who have too much free time and friends from mass -1'ing posts that are made just because people don't like the idea contained within said post.

This is the exact reason why we won't implement this. You and I (and everyone else for that matter) know there are people here that would do this. A certain handful of posters have quite the tendency to act rather childish and bitch and piss and moan, and would go all FAP FAP FAP over than -1 button.

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.

Although I don't have anything against this, I am against changing staff member colors. Not only does that make me feel less badass without red, but for the sake of newer members and such, keeping staff colors at least lets them address authority if there is a problem or concern.

Anyway, I wish this kind of crap just stopped. As the mod staff and adepts know (or most adepts at least), I haven't, until very recently, taken interest in adept politics. Although it shows a level of prominence in the community, most people put that teal title on a pedestal to the point where people complain and whine about it, for all sorts of reasons. If it weren't for the fact that adepts [i]do[i] have a say, although not very large, in the maintenance of this site and future events, I'd say to hell with them, simply because it'd alleviate the bitching from members. That's another thing about it. Most members who complain about it want the title as a means of showing themselves off on the site, and don't entirely understand the position. To a lot of you who piss and moan about not being an adept, at least question yourself and think if you're even the kind of person that the mod staff is going to look at and say, "Hey, we place a high value on your opinion, and would be very interested to know your stance on X." If you aren't someone who is mature enough to handle site politics, then stop complaining. If you believe you are, and you still haven't been upgraded, then odds are, you really aren't.

/end rant.

Sanguine Voyeur

08-25-2008, 09:32 PM

I like the idea of a feedback system, but it's too easy to exploit by ganging up on people. Nothing should support team on team conflict.

Tourney results shouldn't be that significant, but shouldn't be ignored. You can be a good player but a bad deck builder. This forum is primary about deck building. You can pick up Bletcher and ravage an unprepared meta with little effort.

HammafistRoob

08-25-2008, 09:33 PM

What does it mean if some1's name is in pink?(I believe there is only 1(Slay))

Sims

08-25-2008, 09:38 PM

What does it mean if some1's name is in pink?(I believe there is only 1(Slay))

It means that it's Slay. That's it.

Ewokslayer

08-25-2008, 09:40 PM

Jack is there a reason you hate me?

There is no where for this thread to go but into a giant hole of flames, bitching and moaning.

I am going to be out of town and thus the thread will probably be locked and deleted before I get a chance to read the really juicy stuff that will show up around page 4 or 5.

On the actual topic,
Being an adept is awesome.
Every month we get free vouchers for the local hookers.
It also looks impressive on my resume.

JesusFish

08-25-2008, 09:52 PM

I rarely look at these boards, primarily because I do not have much time to myself... but What is the point of all this ranking stuff, all it seems to be doing is making people bitter and angry at one another.

Even the adepts themselves, who are the ones that are supposed to be held to a higher standard, are getting caught in this seemingly unnecessary and senseless squabbling.

I keep seeing the adepts and the mods (please do not pimp slap me, I am just making an observation) saying that people should stop bitching because they do not have the right to do so, and it seems like the rest are just getting pissed at those comments themselves.

Eydunno.

I could care less about having some sort of awesome higher rank than everybody else, I just do not think it should make people feel superior to others here.

Hell, I may just stop going and would expect others to quit going if they do not like what they are seeing (which seems to be an ever-increasing number).

dahcmai

08-25-2008, 09:53 PM

I never saw much point in it, but then again, I can't see these adept forums either. They may have some merit to them, but for the most part I can't picture too much that isn't posted few and far between in the normal sections anyway.

I wasn't real impressed with the adept Q&A though. I stopped reading it after a while. It didn't offer much of anything past what you could get from other sections. It's also annoying when you can't offer a suggestion. I'll stick to the main parts.

I guess it's an ok system for friends, but meh. It's not based on ideas or placings so I guess I don't see what purpose it's serving.

Bardo

08-25-2008, 10:22 PM

I never saw much point in it, but then again, I can't see these adept forums either. They may have some merit to them, but for the most part I can't picture too much that isn't posted few and far between in the normal sections anyway.

We should probably change the name of the Legacy Adept forum to the "Mental Magic and Place to Bitch about the Site" forum, though the same could be said about the Mod Forum, minus the Mental Magic thing.

Personally, I don't see much value in the Adept system as it is. If you're around long enough, you realize the colors don't mean a damn thing--there are some Adepts whose posts I consistently gloss over; while I make an effort to read the posts of several regular users. Titles are kinda meaningless at best, and misleading at worst.

Though, I've done a pretty good job of nominating and promoting most of my favorite posters (that I think add value to the site, not friends), just for convenience. :)

Sims

08-25-2008, 10:38 PM

If you're around long enough, you realize the colors don't mean a damn thing--there are some Adepts whose posts I consistently gloss over; while I make an effort to read the posts of several regular users.

/looks at name, sees it in teal.

Yeah, tell me about it. I've been in this colorcode for how long?

Seriously though, I think that the adept system SHOULD be something. That the adepts should be someone on a higher stnadard of whom people look up to and whose opinions actually matter to the userbase at large.

I don't think I fit that standard, but I also don't think that half the people that are adepts fit that standard.

Whit3 Ghost

08-25-2008, 10:52 PM

What was wrong with the simple once-a-year vote idea again?
I don't really see an issue with it.

I agree that adeptship should have a greater weight to it in terms of responsibility and such.
Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned nametags. Those were sweet.

Xenocide

08-25-2008, 10:58 PM

I don't really care either way (as in changing the Adept system, or not), my only problem is that I couldn't post in the Adept Forum thread, "Favorite Casual Format." This is clearly not an adept only topic, so as long as there is a clear distinction about what does or does not belong in that forum, I have no qualms. That being said, I think a clear distinction needs to be made and maintained.

Volt

08-25-2008, 11:10 PM

FoolofaTook

08-25-2008, 11:20 PM

The only issue that I have with the Adept system is that it creates a status quo which I think is fairly artificial. Some people have pointed out that the Adepts tend to be clumped in geographic groups that do not represent the Legacy meta as a whole.

I believe this gives us a skewed view of what is effective because the best players on the Source also tend to play each other a lot and so their efforts tend to be directed at defeating a relatively small subset of decks.

When we have surprising results from a remote tournament those results tend to be dismissed as a random event, followed by our local tournaments largely playing what they were playing previously and the status quo is upheld.

I'm not saying any of this is wrong or inherently flawed, just that it does tend to create a more stagnant meta for conversation and development, leading directly to things like CANGD... The source Adepts should be on CANGD most of the time, not just when Threshold (or whatever) has bored them to tears.

Even the really good new decks that emerge, like Dreadstill, ITF and FT, are often just variants of earlier efforts or attempted merges.

Just my opinion.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-25-2008, 11:42 PM

The current value of the adept system is mainly that it offers encouragement to people to clean up their act and do well in the format (whatever sour grapes some may harbor).

However, if people are really interested in something more substantial, why not have a "Buzz" forum, where every week or two, 5 threads from any of the actual format related forums are posted, selected by a quarterly elected group of 10 or so "super-adepts", with UN Security Council like measure in place to ensure fairness(at least 2 Europeans, 1 Canadian, 1 West Coaster, 1 East Coaster, the rest are fair game, for example).

The point would be to have a forum specifically for people looking for what's new and hot in the legacy format; whether it's an existing archetype under revival, a new deck idea, a format discussion, or buzz about a new card. Letting the subject be controlled by members selected both for their forum activity and playskill would, hopefully, help ensure relevance.

Whit3 Ghost

08-25-2008, 11:43 PM

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-25-2008, 11:56 PM

And to pre-empt a couple questions

A) It's vital that these "Super-adepts" need not be selected from currently existing adepts. Any member is electable.

B) "Super-adepts" should not serve two consecutive quarters; I fear that it'll come to people having to defend themselves if that happens.

Sanguine Voyeur

08-25-2008, 11:58 PM

I think a 'super-adept' system and anything else creating more social classes will only lead to more conflict. The more parts there are, the more friction there is.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-25-2008, 11:59 PM

I like the idea too, although every week, even every two weeks is too often. We don't want an excitement burnout like the Adept Q&A section, or to a lesser extent like we see with the Magic Hall of Famers thing. Every two months sounds like plenty of time to see what the new decks are doing and give them a fair run as the "hot new thing".

Although I think it'd be easier to eliminate all current adepts, and have a once-or-twice a year vote on 15 or so people who fulfill the same role as "Adepts" or some other title.

Getsickanddie

08-26-2008, 12:01 AM

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/rambostcloud/Seriousbidness.jpg

Internet politics are fucking stupid. I don't care who is or isn't an adept. Let me know when they start issuing adepts paychecks, or grand prix byes.

Whit3 Ghost

08-26-2008, 12:02 AM

FoolofaTook

08-26-2008, 12:03 AM

Dissing Isaac Asimov is bad, really bad.

Sanguine Voyeur

08-26-2008, 12:05 AM

A scheduled election may promote 'campaigning' and quality posts only around election time. Another problem is that I just used the phrase 'election time' describing a possible scenario. Not that I'm discounting forum politics, I just don't want to have to worry about elections in my hobbies.

Bardo

08-26-2008, 12:22 AM

How about a running tally where a person needs X votes to qualify for a position with a cap at about maybe 30 users?

If forced to go by your position, I would definitely think that a bi-monthly vote would be better.

That shit is going to be way too much of a pain in the ass to manage and maintain. The return on the investment is going to suck. And the self-moderating "Adept-level" is ripe for abuse and being a right fucking popularity contest where everyone loses.

Of all of the comments that have been posted so far, Spatula's remark that Adept-hood encourages others to tighten their posting habits is the only one I can get behind.

Truly, the only real benefit to being and Adept is the larger PM box. If anyone really wants to be an adept in the current model, just follow the guidelines (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=174031&postcount=8), and do so consistently.

Generally, to qualify for nomination as a Legacy Adept, a regular poster must possess the following traits:

1. Regular posting and site activity on MTS;
2. A strong understanding of the Legacy format and the evolving metagame;
3. A strong understanding of Magic: the Gathering game theory, mechanics, and rules;
4. Exemplary posting habits, including proper grammar and spelling; clear, articulate presentation of ideas; and respectful treatment of all members;
5. Ideally, though not necessarily required, some form of dedicated service to the format, which can include article writing, dedicated development of new decks, significant optimization of existing archetypes, or organizing/hosting Legacy tournaments in your area.

All of the more recent crop of adepts have followed those guidelines and gotten the +1. If it's important to you, then have at it. If not, it's no one's loss. If the anti-adept thing is rooted in petty egotism, get over yourself.

Phantom

08-26-2008, 12:52 AM

I think, if anything, the adept system isn't being used enough. If you're going to separate people for some purpose then let it have a purpose. Right now we tint their names in the hopes that that helps some new users (who probably don't know that that means anything) sift through so many posts, and we have a Adept Q&A. The Q&A is actually useful (or it would be if it were formatted and archived in a usable manner) but should just be the tip of the iceberg. How about when you're an adept you are expected to contribute to the forum in a meaningful way other than simply "quality" posts, which would most likely happen whether they were an adept or not.

What if there were a set of things that were Adepts responsibilities? For example:

- Restarting threads that have run on too long to be meaningful either by writing an opening post or encouraging the proper person to do so (and assisting them)
- Responding to sub par or decks posted by new members in the forums. I know that this can do a great service to the format. By having an Adept respond in a way that is both encouraging and realistic, we can ensure that novices both avoid the awkwardness of not having their thread responded to, and the embarrassment of being told their deck is unequivocally bad.
- Useful threads. I've brought this up many times to deafening silence, but I'll try again. Why isn't the source a better tool for Legacy deck builders and beginners? Why isn't there a section of the forum that is separated from the back and forth blather, and simply contains well organized well maintained threads with:

Cunning Wish Targets
Black Sideboard options
What to name with Cabal Therapy/Pithing Needle/Meddling Mage
What to know when entering Legacy and common misconceptions about our format
Monitoring the spoilers of a new set and keeping a post updated with useful information (such as the possible impact of good cards) so we don't have to dig through 10 pages of a spoiler thread to keep up.
etc.

-Coming up with questions both for the adept Q&A and for the community board.
Monitoring the spoilers of a new set and keeping

Like I said, if Adept is supposed to mean something, let's have it mean something or else just banish it and move on. Hell, the admins and mods do a lot of work to make the site better, why not the adepts?

As for the selection of Adepts, I have no real beef except that I don't see why play skill has anything to do with it. That's like choosing a president by height. These people are expected to contribute to the site and Legacy, why not choose them by their contributions to the site and Legacy?

Atwa

08-26-2008, 12:54 AM

I am seeing people complaining about the adepthood, but I can't see why they would.

For all the people who are calling: "unfair", let me ask you, do you miss something in this site? Do you really want to raise this discussion because you can't see a single subforum?

I think the way the adepthood is arranged now is alreadt way better than the way it was 2 years ago. If people would complain then that the adept were simply a group of friends, they would be right. However, this is alreasy no longer the case. In the last 2 years, there have alreasy been chosen new adepts, simply because of their effort put into this site and the role they play in Legacy in general.

Can someone please tell me why newer adepts like Eladriel or Nihil don't deserve their status? In the old days, there were even adepts who weren't even active anymore. This alreasy got cleared op, stripping people like Teeniebopper from their status.

I've seen a lot of these kind of good changes in the last couple of years, cleaning up the adepts, adding new adept, the acceptance of non-USA tournament data for the DTB forum. There already have been a lot positive changes to this site lately.

I dsay we leave the adept status they way it is. I know for me I don't qualify for the adepthood, however I am fully aware of that fact and I don't complain about it. I am also fully opposed to the idea of electing the adepts, so far I've always understood why certain people received their status. Turning it in an ellection doesn't mean anything, it's just a populairity contest.

I do like the idea of Spat, were the adepts/mods could make a monthy overview of what happened in the format. Highlighting promesing decks, general news, that kind of thing. However, I do not see the need for another group of people for that purpose, I think we have enough adepts as it is who can contribute to such a thing.

Jaiminho

08-26-2008, 01:01 AM

- Useful threads. I've brought this up many times to deafening silence, but I'll try again. Why isn't the source a better tool for Legacy deck builders and beginners? Why isn't there a section of the forum that is separated from the back and forth blather, and simply contains well organized well maintained threads with:
Cunning Wish Targets
Black Sideboard options
What to name with Cabal Therapy/Pithing Needle/Meddling Mage
What to know when entering Legacy and common misconceptions about our format
...etc.

These threads have failed in the past. Questions such as "What do I name with Therapy/Needle/Mage?" or "What should I have in my wishboard?" are simply too vague. It requires so many variables, while the most shallow of them are what is being played by the player and what is being played by the opponent. Hell, even the thread about casting Grip on Top or on CB ended as being 4 pages long with lots of different opinions and off topic talk.

Phantom

08-26-2008, 01:26 AM

These threads have failed in the past. Questions such as "What do I name with Therapy/Needle/Mage?" or "What should I have in my wishboard?" are simply too vague. It requires so many variables, while the most shallow of them are what is being played by the player and what is being played by the opponent. Hell, even the thread about casting Grip on Top or on CB ended as being 4 pages long with lots of different opinions and off topic talk.

Well, the sideboard/wishboard threads would simply contain viable options, not "play these" demands. The reason these threads have failed in the past (at least in my opinion) is that they become useless due to lack of upkeep and simply dropping off the front page. Both of these can easily be solved.

Therapy/Needle/Mage threads, while more problematic, are still useful. We would just be clear that the matters are not black and white. Something like "Naming High Tide with your first Mage against Solidarity" while not always correct is very useful to many players.

Hell, a thread explaining the dilemma of what to hit with your Grip could make a good post. The key is that these are not back and forth's with the Legacy community (we already have that). These are concentrated help.

Michael Keller

08-26-2008, 02:27 AM

Please, dear God, stop quoting movies in attempt to get a point across. Especially those who are so cliche it's almost embarassing to read lol.

Perhaps some people are more creative in the way they try to generate thought instead of mindlessly attacking each other to try and win a debate. If that doesn't fit to your liking, I'm sorry. No one else is complaining and that's not the point here. If it bothers you that much, you know where to find me Colin.

There will likely be no definitive action taken to sustain the current system and how it works. It doesn't matter anyway, because there are a countless number of folks who don't even know how to "apply" to be one even if they wanted to. The current system seems dysfunctional on paper (or screen) mainly due to the word-of-mouth secrecy to determine who becomes one and who doesn't rather than simply asking someone who should ultimately have veto power, or as stated recently, "Super Adepts" who ultimately should decide who becomes one and who doesn't. If someone intelligent enough wants to assume the role of Adept, do they really have a voice in the matter? Even so, what are the benefits (seriously) for future seekers to achieve this title? Does it really matter?

I really think this needs to stay open for intelligent discussion because this seems to be a valid point regarding a blatantly obvious characteristic of the entire site and all who frequent or visit.

Skeggi

08-26-2008, 04:01 AM

Meh. I don't care. If they rename Adept to Infamous Bear, then sign me up.

Which raises another question: is it the bear who is infamous, or is it the assasin? I always thought it was the assasin, but apparently you see it the other way around :cool:

On-topic:

I think the adept system is a good one, however currently mostly used in the Q&A thread; perhaps we can find more tools to employ their knowledgebase.

People who look up to them and think "why are they being put upon a pedestal" should get their stick out of their ass and see what they can actually learn from these people. You don't have to come to theSource, so if you don't like the system here, go to any other random forum dedicated to Legacy.

I like the way this site is modded, and the Adept system is part of this engine. Having a site with Adepts doesn't immediately mean the other users talk out of their asses.

Basically what I'm saying: I like the Adept system with color code and everything.

Even more on topic:

Yes, I'd like to see more European people become adepts, like Adan or Elficidium. A yearly vote doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Belgareth

08-26-2008, 04:03 AM

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?

This seems sensible.
Personally I judge the quality of the post on it's content, not on who posted it.
Certainly it's nice to recognise the consistently good posters (Nihil, taco, Freund come to mind), but the colour of a title should not mean people should assume that person knows more.

Certain adepts even go about making an ass of themselves on occasions by blowing off peoples ideas as inferior (no not the people in new decks forums trying to get elves into dtb ;) ).
The source works well as it is , and is probably one of the best run sites I've seen as long as you can get past the whole Syracuse mens club thing that sometimes becomes apparent (but even then, who cares, the guys are skilled players and good friends so if they want to bitch at each others decks occasionally it's a small price to pay for such a good site).

The best part of the source is that it's willing to adapt and evolve to the needs of the community (The dtb forum changes were very well handled).

I'd love to see the adepts do more, just answering a few questions every so often isn't enough.
Primers , tournaments and other such things would help (Yes some of them do these things already).
Also if the adept title is supposed to be monitored on the quality of posting, it should probably be reviewed every so often ?
I don't have a problem with anyone having a title (be it coloured or not), but I could understand some people seeing inconsistency with who is made adept.

AngryTroll

08-26-2008, 04:56 AM

I like the system the way it is. As stated, the simple color code should make things slightly easier on new members and draws attention to posts by people that are supposed to know what they are talking about. On the other hand, I certainly don't just look at name color; some Adepts get skipped over, and I search out posts made by many of the regular users.

While I do feel that the Adepts are a little...clumpy, I can name three NorthWest Adepts off of the top of my head (Bardo, Frogboy, and Pinder), and Godzilla (if he still exists?) gets the fancy red color.

Adepthood does generally encourage well thought out and composed posts, so for that reason alone is probably worth leaving in place. I am not sure how many people have become disenchanted with the prospect of a shiny new name color and no longer care if there posting habits lead them to Adepthood, though. The general feeling of resentment clearly displayed in this thread makes that pretty obvious.

As mentioned, I think scheduled votes would lead to "campaigning" at certain times. Leaving it always open means that people should try all the time.

I think that the Adept System should be left the way that it is. In general, I'm pretty happy with the people selected for Adept-ship, and I have been pleased to see some of the newer members elevated to that status. I can name a handful of members off of the top of my head that I think deserve the status, but I also don't read every post written in every thread here; I can't judge how well every member fulfills every requirement.

Now, on the other hand, if it was Infamous Bear or Infamous Assassin status, I'd throw down. I am pretty sure I could take Bardo or Pinder in a fight.

Shugyosha

08-26-2008, 05:59 AM

I just think there are too many adepts. There are some adepts who are exactly doing what they should: Post a lot with a high value for the format and the community. But as I saw in the Adept Q&A forum there are also adepts who don't meet the high standard I'm expecting from the adepts.

There should be a small group of adepts who see the adept status as duty not as privilege. This group existed and still exists now as the core of the adepts but there are just too many other adepts who are not that eloquent, well informed and calm.

Can people actually loose adept status? For example if they become idle for a year or so?

frogboy

08-26-2008, 06:01 AM

Mods don't really count as Adepts; I've made like three strategy posts in the last year.

edit:

There should be a small group of adepts who see the adept status as duty not as privilege.

There is no duty. The title is recognition that you are good at communicating coherently, and that your ideas are worth listening to.

ACME_Myst

08-26-2008, 06:09 AM

I have an idea, somewhat similiar to the Slashdot suggestion, but on a more profitable level for the entire community. I'm not going to mix in the discussion of whether or not Adept status is a big circle jerk or not.

Step 1: Wipe all the adepts. Might not be fair, but hey, you have to start somewhere.

Step 2: Open up a new forum, open for any user to post in. However, only users who aspire to get adept status should open new threads here. They should write an article on either specific (existing, proven) decks, matchups, or format strategy in general (NOT new decks. This should not become a new N&D). Any user with a postcount higher than X, or with an account older than Y (to prevent creating new accounts just for voting) can then rate this article with either +1 or -1. Each user should obviously be able to vote only once (the Poll system could be used to implement this, though I'm not sure if you can disable Guests accounts from voting on it), though discussion on the article should be carried out as normal. Once the rating hits a certain threshold (say, +50 or +100), the poster gets Adept status.

The benefits of this system:

- Users get voted in based on their understanding of the format, and their ability to transfer this understanding onto others by way of posting.

- The "friends club" part is mostly eliminated, though of course you could still get all your buddies to +1 your article. The threshold should be set high enough to offset this.

- Even if a user doesn't get adept status, they still provided the community with a (hopefully) good and useful article.

- The community is responsible for voting in Adepts, while giving aspiring Adepts the ability to show off their format understanding when they would not normally be noticed by the community as a whole because of low postcount / whatever.

Downsides of the system:

- It could take quite some time to reach the threshold for adept status. Maybe this could be offset by forcing the existing adepts to rate any new article. Just make sure the required threshold is higher than the number of adepts.

- It doesn't reflect playskill as much as it does format understanding, though a matchup analysis could also show that off.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 07:57 AM

I do like the idea of Spat, were the adepts/mods could make a monthy overview of what happened in the format. Highlighting promesing decks, general news, that kind of thing. However, I do not see the need for another group of people for that purpose, I think we have enough adepts as it is who can contribute to such a thing.

That's the problem; if it's left up to the adepts it will encourage a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the way things are set up. I actually agree with quite a few people that there are some regular posters who are better than some adepts.

The point of my proposed system is to solve two recent complaints;

A) The Source doesn't do enough to promote new deck ideas

B) The Adept system is status quo encouraging and pointless.

Why not use the latter to fix the former? The problem with using adepts themselves, however, is that many of us just aren't active enough. There are plenty of way more active posters who are regular posters.

I like the idea too, although every week, even every two weeks is too often. We don't want an excitement burnout like the Adept Q&A section, or to a lesser extent like we see with the Magic Hall of Famers thing. Every two months sounds like plenty of time to see what the new decks are doing and give them a fair run as the "hot new thing".

I don't feel like "Super-adepts" would get burned out that quickly. Ideally, we wouldn't have people asking to do it without a high level of interest in the format. Updating the "Buzz" forum every month, though, instead of biweekly, may work.

I think a 'super-adept' system and anything else creating more social classes will only lead to more conflict. The more parts there are, the more friction there is.

I don't think you can take generalized principles and apply them absolutely.

Adepts really don't do anything, and are in pretty much indefinitely.

Super-adepts would have a job on the site, and are in for a limited time.

A scheduled election may promote 'campaigning' and quality posts only around election time. Another problem is that I just used the phrase 'election time' describing a possible scenario. Not that I'm discounting forum politics, I just don't want to have to worry about elections in my hobbies.

Announcer: Hi there Billy!
Billy: Gosh, hi there Mr. Announcer.
A: What seems to have gotten you so down, Billy?
B: Gee whiz, Mr. Announcer, I wish I were a Super-adept!
A:*condescending chuckle* But it's easy, Billy!
First, submit your intent to run to a moderator, via the private messaging application.
Second, the moderators will have a cut off date. At that date, they'll determine how many nominees they have.
If they have more than 25 nominees, they can use the adept forum as a sounding board to find out which posters may not be active enough, or may be causing problems.
B: Rabble-rousers? Like Mr. Cavius?
A: That's right Billy!
Third, once the list is at a managable level, a poll is created in the "Buzz" forum with all the nominees names, and hidden results.
All users have two weeks to vote.
At the end of that time, the results will be tallied by the judges;

The highest scoring Canadian
The highest scoring West Coaster
The highest scoring East Coaster
The highest scoring German
The highest scoring other European

And the other 5 highest scores will all be Super-Adepts for the next cycle!
B: Gee willickers, that does sound swell!

A: It sure does, Billy.

It sure does.

Sanguine Voyeur

08-26-2008, 09:26 AM

I don't think you can take generalized principles and apply them absolutely.But it does apply. Even in the current system there is dissension. There were more example in this thread, but all I can find is this (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=265356&postcount=20).
...story...What are you trying to prove? You just described the set up of an election, you didn't refute my points or make any new ones.

Peter_Rotten

08-26-2008, 09:38 AM

Part I

1. Creating more standards or responsibilities for Adepts is a bad idea if there are no concrete benefits. Imagine, like GetSick facetiously suggested, Adepts earned paychecks? Or even player rewards? We could then create a ton of enforcible standards. But this is not the case; let's move to #2.

2. I personally don't think creating responsibilities for a hobby such as discussing and researching a card game is a good idea.

Q: Do you know when I hate this site the most?
A: At the end of the month.
Q: Why?
A: I somehow have become the DTBF update person, which is a responsibility. (Modding seems more like a hobby although I'm avoiding checking the Admin page to check on all the new sign-ups to make sure that they are not Chinese Bots. Meh, I should do that now. BRB.)

When we originally created the Adept Q&A forum, we planned to have that as an Adept responsibility. Eventually, we realized that this was a poor idea and now have more of a "answer it if you want to" attitude about that forum. Who wants to deal with a responsibility when checking a hobby site?

3. Adepthood seems to mean more to people who don't have it. I recall how much one current Adept wanted the title and after having it for awhile, I'm not so sure he sees it as a big deal anymore.

Part I summation: Creating more standards and responsibilities for Adepthood is probably a bad idea.

Part II

I like Spat's idea of having a monthly buzz topic for 10 people to discuss. I also like having those 10 people be a selection of members and adepts from many locations. Making a specific quota from each region may be more work than the mod staff is willing to do. It may be easier to make sure we don't get a clump of members from the same area.

However. I have some concerns. First, I am worried about (returning to I.2) creating something that members are supposed to do. Will they be active? Will they want to do it? Second, I am worried creating more hurt feelings. I can imagine some posts already - "OH! Why didn't I get chosen? BooHoo, you elite jerks." No matter the measures we take, we will get complaints about the selection process.

I am NOT in favor of a new level of user. The idea can be implemented without creating a Super-Di-Duper Leetxor Adept level member and without a new user group or color.

Lastly, before seriously discussing this (creating a new forum, new user permissions, and new Mod responsibilities) with the Mods, I'd like to see some examples of possible discussion topics.

Part II summation: Spat's idea is interesting but I want some examples of topics.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-26-2008, 10:33 AM

thefreakaccident

08-26-2008, 10:42 AM

Zach Tartell

08-26-2008, 10:55 AM

I'm not.... opposed to Spatula's suggestion. (time out - I'd like Matt to know that I know that he's Matt Elgin, not some dude named Spatula. I freaking hate people addressing other's handles rather than the person themselves. So, for the sake of preliterate, I'm addressing Matt as Spatula, so folks aren't like, "MattH? Did he even post in this thread?" - time in)

But I think that the quotas are a little off. Like, are there more than like six Canadian users? I can think of Dave Caplan (goobalfish or some such) and B.C. (whom I may have simply confused with Brittish Colombia). Then that guy in Montreal who I always consider PMing when I drive up to go clubbing. But never do.

That said, I have no objection to the system as it is outlined now.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 11:05 AM

But it does apply. Even in the current system there is dissension. There were more example in this thread, but all I can find is this (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=265356&postcount=20).

But this is the ultimate populist position. Anyone can run for this spot, anyone can vote, no one can serve consecutive posts, and it's the ultimate platform for people with new ideas to promote those ideas.

What are you trying to prove? You just described the set up of an election, you didn't refute my points or make any new ones.

I'm merely trying to outline the general way it would work.

More after I get back from lunch.

jazzykat

08-26-2008, 11:08 AM

Overall I think adept status is irrelevant. I have limited time so, I do tend to look at an adept's posts more carefully. That said allowing a troll to be an adept ruins some of MY filtering (as if anyone cares).

I think people tend to look up to/put more weight into what an adept writes/says and given that a great deal of them are from the East coast their experiences are with that meta (the most advanced meta?) in mind. In that way some of their experiences have to be taken with a grain of salt because I usually play landstill, threshhold, ITF, Stax, etc. and have almost never faced a source deck in an Albuquerque tournament. Strangely enough, if you have a deck tuned super tight to squeeze out a slightly better matchup vs. the Tier 1 decks, and the randoms tend to gun for you, your chances are not as good as you would initially think even though in a vacuum your deck is 10x better than theirs.

My suggestion is to examine the "mission statement" of the source and perhaps adjust it to say what you want it to say. Then select new adepts that will help you achieve it.

xsockmonkeyx

08-26-2008, 11:24 AM

So me and Pinder were talking about this a few months ago and we concluded (I think) that the whole status thing on this site is counterproductive. In the end i think we decided that it would be best to get rid of the adept thingy, as its kind of an ad hominem (I know this probably isnt the correct term and IBA can nail me for this). I also thought it would be a good idea to get rid of post counts which are even worse at sending the wrong message to newer members.

Basically I want people to actually read the words you type to evaluate your argument instead of some other arbitrary implied authority.

Whatever system gets chosen is not that big a deal to me personally, but for the sake of the site things do need to change. I always hated the idea of adepts and never wanted to be one ever. Luckily for me I suck at magic so this is largely a non-issue. But whatever you choose make sure that Volt is an adept. The site looks really bad if youre leaving him out IMO.

~monkey

EDIT: and Roodmistah. If Dreadstill sucks then he's been mopping up the East Coast with a "crap" deck and making you all look bad.

Peter_Rotten

08-26-2008, 11:33 AM

There's a hole somewhere in your logic that's circular (I guess that's like, a wormhole or something), P_R. You suggest that some Adepts wouldnt want the extra responsibility of actually voting on and doing something once or twice a month, or even more rarely than that, and use this as a reason to suggest that it's a bad idea. But if the fundamental question is; Should the Adepts exist? Then the answer must involve a reason. If we create a reason for the Adepts to exist, and it must inherently involve performing a task, that seems like a greater reason to cut out the Adepts not up to the task than to cut out the task. Should someone who only wants to check the forums casually have or want or need any special posting status? It seems like a more fluid election system to Adeptship should inherently weed out those who don't want to deal with said bullshit. And if people miss the private forum that much, just create an MMM sub-forum.

Hmmm... I don't see it as circular logic. Can we look at the Adept status as a recognition of the previously mentioned qualities like good posting habits? I think so. Does (or should) Adept status come with other responsibilities besides the obviously inherent ones like continuing said posting habits? Creating an artificial responsibility for a member group might even be seen as more of a punishment than a reward.

Right now, I think we are discussing the value of the Adept status (duh!). If we review what some people have said, it seems that Adept status can mean the following to various ppl:

1. Nothing
2. Helps ppl scan to more "valuable" posts.
3. When some site issues rise, the Mods have a valuable and smaller group of ppl to spring board ideas.
4. Elite boys club where a select few can touch their pee-pees without others interfering.
5. Recognition of being an excellent and productive member of this site

I am against creating a task for the Adepts. (Maybe we're playing with words here but "task" implies an unwanted or boring job to do). Creating a "task" failed with the Q&A. That forum runs better as a voluntary thing.

Directly about Spat's idea vs. creating more responsibility: As I see it, his idea is not fully formed. I'm not sure what - if any - responsibility will or should be created for the Adepts. I would assume that responding to a buzz topic would be voluntary. However, I think we're putting the cart before the horse here and have two separate discussions going: one about Adept status and one about a brand new idea. Although the first may, in the end, influence a bit of the second, I don't see them intertwined as of yet.

I was specifically worried about the responsibility of discussing the Buzz Topic, not the responsibility of voting on the participants. I'm not worried about the voting part because I'm not sure if that is how I would like to implement the idea. I want to see if we really want a Buzz Topic and then we can decide the specifics. Essentially, I'm saying that we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

Also, does everyone agree that the Adept Q&A has kind of run it's course?

I like the slower method of proposing new questions. Personally, I also like having a sort of reference section where people are not debating each other but simply posting their ideas and leaving them at that. We do need more good questions.

Volt

08-26-2008, 11:39 AM

ACME_Myst

08-26-2008, 11:47 AM

As to what Adepts really 'are', and should do, in your (P_R) list I see point 2 and 5 (maybe 3) being the relevant ones. I couldn't give a shit about point 4, since people with huge egos will display those on the main site anyway.

Given those are the qualities you're looking for in Adepts, would you say those qualities really fluctuate over an X periode of time, which would be reflected by an election round run every so often? Also, should activity on the site really be taken into account here?

If some known mastermind strategist makes a post, I don't care if he has posted in the past half year or not. I want to be able to see a different colored name, think 'this guy knows what he's talking about', and read that post carefully.

Also, I know most of the current Adepts by their activity in the MM forum, NOT from the activity and knowledge they displayed in strategy or deck threads. Isn't there something wrong with that?

Lego

08-26-2008, 11:56 AM

I also thought it would be a good idea to get rid of post counts which are even worse at sending the wrong message to newer members.

I'm not sure how viable this is, as I've never run a message board system before, but I have to whole heartedly agree with this. Axe post counts! I mean, I like to think that I've made some pretty good posts, and I'm generally an overall good poster, but the first ~year of my posts are complete and utter shite (pronounce it like you're Brad Pitt from Snatch) yet I have a higher post count than someone like, say, Volt. It just seems like a way to make people feel bad about their input into the sight, or a way to encourage people to post, which I find often leads to useless things being said just to add to one's count. Personally, I don't think it encourages anything we want to encourage.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 12:05 PM

Directly about Spat's idea vs. creating more responsibility: As I see it, his idea is not fully formed. I'm not sure what - if any - responsibility will or should be created for the Adepts. I would assume that responding to a buzz topic would be voluntary. However, I think we're putting the cart before the horse here and have two separate discussions going: one about Adept status and one about a brand new idea. Although the first may, in the end, influence a bit of the second, I don't see them intertwined as of yet.

I was specifically worried about the responsibility of discussing the Buzz Topic, not the responsibility of voting on the participants. I'm not worried about the voting part because I'm not sure if that is how I would like to implement the idea. I want to see if we really want a Buzz Topic and then we can decide the specifics. Essentially, I'm saying that we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

Oh, I see. I think there may be some confusion.

My idea for a "Buzz" forum wouldn't be to create new threads. It would be to highlight(either by linking or moving) a set of all ready existant threads that the popularly elected "Super-Adepts" would select. Their job would simply be to keep that Buzz forum relevant.

On that note, thinking about how often the forum should be updated, I don't think a predetermined timeframe would actually work. Every two weeks won't work when things are slow between major tournaments, and every month may completely miss a hugely relevant format discussion that occurs in the middle of that timeframe. So I think that there would have to be a seperate "Super-Adept Lounge" where the Super Adepts would discuss potential threads to move in, so that the forum can be made up to date with any ongoing discussion.

Second, I am worried creating more hurt feelings. I can imagine some posts already - "OH! Why didn't I get chosen? BooHoo, you elite jerks." No matter the measures we take, we will get complaints about the selection process.

I thought about this too, but realistically, if the position changes regularly, and there are no consecutive terms, it would be hard to accuse the Source of encouraging further elitism through it. I believe that everyone would be able to get a fair shake under my system, adept or not.

I am NOT in favor of a new level of user. The idea can be implemented without creating a Super-Di-Duper Leetxor Adept level member and without a new user group or color.

I think that's fine. With the position changing so often, it'd probably be a pain to constantly change anyway.

But they will need a seperate forum, similiar to the "Team forums", for discussion of possible additions and changes to the "Buzz" forum.

Lastly, before seriously discussing this (creating a new forum, new user permissions, and new Mod responsibilities) with the Mods, I'd like to see some examples of possible discussion topics.

Let's say;

[Brainstorming]Balancing Act
[Casual Deck] Aggro Elves
[Primer] Legacy Control Slaver
[Deck] Solidarity
[Article] Unlocking Legacy- Tom Brady, Ice Cauldron, and Lifeforce

As random examples. Some new and developmental decks the SA's feel show promise, an old deck that they think shows new promise in a new metagame/with the release of new cards, an article they feel has some important insights, and a brainstorming thread about an under-utilized card.

Edit: I can all ready see some people pointing out that this may turn into people with pet decks using the forum as a way to plug those decks. I don't consider that a bad thing. I don't see 10 people agreeing to keep one person's pet deck in the forum for more than a few weeks, so I think it will be a managable way to get fresh ideas into the spotlight.

Edit2: On a related note, although the forum would be there to highlight existant threads, you would expect the SAs to naturally lean towards threads in which they are active. I consider this a good thing, as it would demonstrate and hopefully encourage leadership in terms of post quality in those threads.

Edit3: I think that predetermined safeguards are necessary in terms of SA membership. Otherwise making decisions about who's in and who's out in terms of "preventing regional clustering" will be open to charges of favoritism. Also, I really don't think it's that complicated. You find the two Europeans with the highest scores, you let them in. Repeat for 1 Canuck, 1 West, 1 East, then the top 5 remaining. It's not that hard.

Nightmare

08-26-2008, 12:06 PM

Fuck that commie no-post-count shit. I want more site statistical info, not less. I've got to get my ego stroking in somewhere!

Volt

08-26-2008, 12:16 PM

Peter_Rotten

08-26-2008, 12:39 PM

/tangent about post count. Does everyone know that Admins can change the post count of any member? They really don't mean much at all when I can change them on a whim.

I totally misunderstood Spat's idea at first but like it better now as a forum with 5 (4, 6, 7 whatever) threads. If anything, it will be an interesting experiment. To continue playing with the idea, I have some more questions.

1. Will these be NEW threads discussing existing topics? For example, in the Buzz Forum, we start a new elf thread for the 10 Buzzers to discuss. Moving the existing thread would remove it from general discussion which I doubt is a good idea.

2. Should we have 10 people elected who then choose 5 threads OR should we choose 5 threads and then choose 10 people for those threads?

2a. Who will do all that choosing? Should Adepts vote on 5 threads and the general user-base choose the Buzz members? Or what?

3. I think that a "soft" month should be a good time frame. This way, if discussion is dead we can end the "month" early or if discussion is hot, then we can extend the month? Thoughts?

jazzykat

08-26-2008, 12:41 PM

I sort of agree about the post count thing, although I think the notion that one's post count correlates to their expertise is much less prevalent here than on some other Legacy sites.

Maybe the post counts could just be "hidden," accessible only by viewing a member's profile?

Agreed. I think that it would reduce what for some of us is certainly an involuntary prejudice vs. the guy with 50 posts who is an absolute ninja.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-26-2008, 12:44 PM

I think post count is kind of redundant with join date, and I rely more on join date. Some people post very seldom, but tend to post more relevantly than new members who just spam Mish Mash and (insert terrible developmental deck here) threads. Not that join date is the end-all be-all either, but it gives me more of an idea if the person's been reading for a while and more likely to have experience with the format.

If people think there is a serious merit to the idea of Adepts existing solely as a special status to encourage good posting, then I think it's obvious that the role of 'super-adepts' or some such as proposed by Spatula also has merit. There are certainly enough active and highly competent members that wouldn't mind the 'task' of guiding the DTB or a special 'Buzz' forum.

Nightmare

08-26-2008, 12:45 PM

Agreed. I think that it would reduce what for some of us is certainly an involuntary prejudice vs. the guy with 50 posts who is an absolute ninja.
If you guys honestly think that taking away post counts (or even hiding them) will end the bias against new users vs. regulars, you're kidding yourselves. You all know who has been on the site a while, and who is a newb. Taking away a physical representation of that status won't change it.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 01:04 PM

I totally misunderstood Spat's idea at first but like it better now as a forum with 5 (4, 6, 7 whatever) threads. If anything, it will be an interesting experiment. To continue playing with the idea, I have some more questions.

1. Will these be NEW threads discussing existing topics? For example, in the Buzz Forum, we start a new elf thread for the 10 Buzzers to discuss. Moving the existing thread would remove it from general discussion which I doubt is a good idea.

Why would it remove it from the general discussion if it got moved? It'd be the same as moving a deck in and out of the DTB forum.

2. Should we have 10 people elected who then choose 5 threads OR should we choose 5 threads and then choose 10 people for those threads?

The first one.

2a. Who will do all that choosing? Should Adepts vote on 5 threads and the general user-base choose the Buzz members? Or what?

Members nominate themselves for SA status.
Members vote on SAs.
SAs discuss and select threads for the Buzz forum.

Peter_Rotten

08-26-2008, 01:13 PM

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 01:16 PM

I'm not willfully being obtuse (maybe it comes naturally), but I assumed that the point of the Buzz Forum was to create a bit of a FishBowl discussion in which ONLY 10 people would dicuss 5 topics in a special forum and the rest of the site watched.

But what you're suggesting is that 10 people choose 5 topics to put in a Buzz Forum. The purpose of that forum is to point out interesting, relevant, exciting, whatever discussion. And anyone can post in that forum just as if it's the Established or N&D forum. But nobody can start new threads there.

Have I finally understood the full idea? :frown:

Correct. The role of the SAs would be to manage the forum and keep it relevant and exciting.

Hopefully it would have the added bonus of giving people incentive to be clear, articulate, and researched in posting new deck ideas, since those people will be rewarded, hopefully, by having said new deck ideas given a spotlight.

Nightmare

08-26-2008, 01:23 PM

So, basically, this is what happens?

1) Members nominate themselves for the position of BUZZards. This means that every person on the site is in the running, because we're all conceited bastards.

2) Members vote on who gets to be a BUZZard. This means, we have one of two things:
a) everyone votes for themself.
b) Mods/Admins are left figuring out a way to select the winner.

3) We establish BUZZards. Admins are now required to change permissions for these members, and for the ones who are now relinquishing the title.

4) BUZZards vote on which threads go to the BUZZ forum. This takes forever, especially if NoVA gets a vote. God forbid they have any self-interest in a particular thread, and they just nominate their own pet deck to improve discussion on it. Mods/Admins are required to dig up the threads and move them, and move the old threads back to whence they came.

5) Repeat.

Bear in mind, this means a significant addition to the work required of the site staff - who, much to my dismay, can't even be convinced to demote inactive adepts.

diffy

08-26-2008, 01:32 PM

Bear in mind, this means a significant addition to the work required of the site staff - who, much to my dismay, can't even be convinced to demote inactive adepts.

Time to get some additional, new (as in 'not-burned out yet'), Mods?

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 01:33 PM

Who the fuck appointed you New Mike Eddinger?

I'll reply when I'm off work.

Nightmare

08-26-2008, 01:36 PM

Time to get some additional, new (as in 'not-burned out yet'), Mods?
Been down that road, too. Problem is, the people who are in charge (see: Red names) like being in charge. And for the most part, they're pretty good at it, too. They're just suuuper lazy about doing some stuff.

Nightmare

08-26-2008, 01:37 PM

Who the fuck appointed you New Mike Eddinger?

I'll reply when I'm off work.
I'm just being realistic. It's a lot of work to keep it running like that. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm saying you're promoting a system which places a burden of effort on a bunch of people who aren't you, and aren't really that upset by the status quo.

landstill101

08-26-2008, 01:43 PM

scrumdogg

08-26-2008, 01:46 PM

Fuck that commie no-post-count shit. I want more site statistical info, not less. I've got to get my ego stroking in somewhere!

Yeah, and your little friends Clark (and his alter ego/alternate account Suckerpunch) and Cavius and Breathweapon and Radley and....ad infinitum on people who talk for the sake of hearing themselves talk. Post counts do provide a nice ego stroke, but the cost is far too high...also, it creates an illusion for new users that said person might actually play this format or have a clue, which is not necessarily the case.

diffy

08-26-2008, 01:49 PM

Been down that road, too. Problem is, the people who are in charge (see: Red names) like being in charge.

I don't see a problem with this: I'm not directly advocating replacing any of the experienced mod staff (which would only lead to a chaotic situation due to a lack of experience of the new mods) but to get more mods. This would spread the increasing workload on more shoulders to keep the 'pressure' on each individual the same, at least in the long run.
If you don't like the idea of too many people running around with the absolute bear (moderator) powers [tm], then you could introduce something like 'domain moderators' which would have mod-rights for only a limited area of the site - like have one or four guys in charge of this new fancy idea, have one or three guys in charge of that new fancy thingy etc.

my ideas [...] have been shut down because the adept didn't like the ideas.

Addressing everyone thinking so rather than you directly: can anyone link me to any posts/topics where this has actually taken place? I just can't recall anyone saying 'I'm right because I'm an Adept' lately.

Bryant Cook

08-26-2008, 01:51 PM

Yeah, and your little friends Clark (and his alter ego/alternate account Suckerpunch) and Cavius and Breathweapon and Radley and....ad infinitum on people who talk for the sake of hearing themselves talk. Post counts do provide a nice ego stroke, but the cost is far too high...also, it creates an illusion for new users that said person might actually play this format or have a clue, which is not necessarily the case.

I actually don't bother reading most posts from people with low post counts. I'd just rather read people who are established as intelligent. It saves time and I believe someone with a post count of 2,000+ probably has a good idea of what they're talking about. Theres the occasional Cavius, but people know whos a giant ass.

Michael Keller

08-26-2008, 01:53 PM

I like Bardo's idea of just keeping the colors the same, I have been reading this forum for a about a year now and posted pretty regularly for about 4 months and found that since I'm not atleast an adept for the source, my ideas that have gotten me many first place wins in a very tough(my opinion) meta, have been shut down because the adept didn't like the ideas. I think the adepts should just be erased completly.

But if we are to have an adept section, it should be done on people who have done well in tournys and have an actual ranking (or voted on by the thoughts of posts for the ones who don't have sanctioned tournies)and not chosen by friends or how many posts. I have talked to a couple of people about being an adept and I just get told that I have to prove myself(and don't explain how that is done.....now that I think about it, how do you prove yourself in a forum???) and then the adepts might think of voting to add more or not.

The whole problem is this: If you want to be an Adept, you have to be a little more scholarly and post more frequently and intelligently than a large percentage of signed-up users. Now, here's where a question arises:

Should we use the DCI Ranking System as an indicator who should be an Adept or not? The way it stands, the answer is a resounding "no". But it obviously takes a great deal of time, patience, and intelligence to do well in a difficult metagame and then devote extra time to progress the format in which you play. I just feel like the Adept system is a self-inflicted twisted popularity contest and nothing more. I've heard just as many good ideas from folks who aren't Adepts and share a wide variety of insight and analysis on some of their favorite decks than those who are.

But in defense for some of the Adepts, they share wisdom and intellect on different levels and that's what I like best: Diversity.

SouthAlly

08-26-2008, 02:10 PM

Is there a reason we can't have a Greek method for both Adepthood and Buzzhood? I will be a little more concise.

Ancient Greek citizens (men only, grrrrrr) were required to serve in public office for a given amount of time. In our case, we would change out Greek citizens for active users with atleast, uhh say, 200 posts, selected in some essentially random fashion. These users would simply be placed on the BUZZard (cute) committee for a month. A simple post indicating who is on for that month should do. There is no need to change any account settings. It is up to the user to demonstrate some sort of ability and knowledge during his/her tenured time in the spotlight - especially towards the decks that are also highlighted at that time. Only BUZZards can sound off on the Buzz decks which should be chosen by the outgoing BUZZards. That way, the entire community can see who deserves to be an Adept. We could have IBA's annual voting system, but you are only eligible if you were a BUZZard that year.

Not fully thought out, but almost.

Peter_Rotten

08-26-2008, 02:13 PM

Cranky Nightmare has a valid point - Spat's suggestion, as it is now, is a bit of work. I wonder if we can simplify it and still keep the heart of the suggestion. How about this:

We have Adepts vote on 5 decks to develop from N&D. In other words, each Adept chooses 5 N&D decks that they think has potential. The top 5 decks are then presented to the general membership and they vote on their favorite. The two rounds of voting should take no longer than 3 or 4 days each. That winning deck then gets stickied to the top of the N&D forum for about a month with a fancy tag like DTFo (Deck to Focus on) or something like that. Then the community can work on that deck. Maybe - and I'm not sure about this - we can even donate a prize to anyone who can prove he has T8ed in a 33plus tourney with that chosen deck in the past month.

Benefits:
1. Gives Adepts more to do
2. Gives members more to do
3. Focuses on a likely to be ignored deck
3a. Promotes diversity

So where does my version succeed? Where does it fail? Does it gut Spat's original idea too much?

Bardo

08-26-2008, 02:19 PM

Should we use the DCI Ranking System as an indicator who should be an Adept or not? The way it stands, the answer is a resounding "no".

And this will continue to be the case. There are a few reasons why: 1) Legacy is not Standard (i.e. Legacy events are few and far between in some parts of the world); 2) many legacy tournaments are not sanctioned (maybe because of proxies, maybe not); 3) good players do not necessarily make for good posters.

The effect of one or two will be to create a bias for posters in some regions where there are many sanctioned legacy tournaments. The players that do well there will likely be metagaming for those regions, so their ideas may not apply to how approach match-ups in, say, Heidelberg. Excellent legacy players who dominate areas where events are frequently not sanctioned (Pacific NW, from experience) will not be counted for completely artificial reasons. These are just a few problems with using tournament performance as your sole criteria.

Mainly, it's the third point. This is a DISCUSSION FORUM. The Adept Guidelines were carefully written to take a certain amount of play skill, deck design and development, creativity, rules knowledge, etc. into consideration. But all of that aside, no matter how fantastic of a deck-builder you are, no matter how high your DCI rating is, no matter how many ass-wrecking decks you build, if you can't post decently and be a valuable community member, none of that matters for being an Adept, and worthy of the "stamp of approval" or whatever it means to people. No one gets a free ride to be an asshole. If you can't fight the need to be an utter douche bag to others, fine, just do it somewhere else on the net.

About the application process you mentioned earlier, we actually wrote in a proviso to the adept guidelines (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7455) to prohibit self-nomination. If you're a great poster and an asset to the online legacy community, you will be noticed and you'll get promoted (off the top of my head, Illussius, Lonelybaritone, Freakish, Nihil, etc.).

I still would love to see my idea implemented (everyone has the same color user name), for the reasons I stated earlier, for 30 days and see what kind of difference that makes. At the end of the day, I don't think there will be any meaningful difference: you'll still know who's worth listening to and who can be comfortably ignored, and that will be that.

Parcher

08-26-2008, 02:21 PM

I honestly hope that this:

4) BUZZards vote on which threads go to the BUZZ forum. This takes forever, especially if NoVA gets a vote.

And this:

God forbid they have any self-interest in a particular thread, and they just nominate their own pet deck to improve discussion on it.

are two completely unrelated statements (it looks like they refers to NoVA). And you are only desparaging the southern inability to make a definitive decision within a month, not inferring that we would promote some crappy (T.E.C.) deck we made to stroke our own ego.

Nightmare

08-26-2008, 02:26 PM

I honestly hope that this:

And this:

are two completely unrelated statements (it looks like they refers to NoVA). And you are only desparaging the southern inability to make a definitive decision within a month, not inferring that we would promote some crappy (T.E.C.) deck we made to stroke our own ego.
The two were not meant to be related. However, TEC was awesome.

ACME_Myst

08-26-2008, 02:27 PM

Also, maybe I'm biased because I'm one of those people, but does anyone else notice that besides the current 'known' posters and Adepts, everyone else in this thread gets blatantly ignored?

SouthAlly

08-26-2008, 03:19 PM

I am not ignoring you, Myst. But I think it is funny that it is *certainly* occurring in the thread that is meant to address that very thing.

ACME_Myst

08-26-2008, 03:22 PM

Yay attention!

/emo

But yeah, what you said

Parcher

08-26-2008, 03:27 PM

I do have one issue with the current Adept guidlines. It rewards people who write, not those who do.

Tournament success is understandibly difficult to quantify for Legacy due to the multiple previously listed reasons. But what about those who develop their decks for tournaments?

I think it is an awful standard that those who create and/or develop decks that shape this format on their own are excluded. Especially when these lists are discussed in great detail on this site. If a player decides for whatever reason that they do not wish to share in a deck's development until it is deemed completed, or wants to keep secret certain differences from the norm, I think they should be accorded the same (if not more) deference to those who post along with thirty others to come to the same, or worse, conclusions. This is assuming of course that their lists, reasoning, and conclusions are posted on The Source by them at the appropriate time.

No matter how many times you post a day, or how many on any particular subject, people will always want proof. This is always in the form of positive results, sometimes in testing, but mostly in tournaments. I think those who take the initiative to take an exisiting deck to it's best form, or create new versions of decks (no deck is completely new) that become format standards should not be excluded because they did not slather The Source with random thoughts before doing so.

CleverPetriDish

08-26-2008, 04:32 PM

Forgive the potential foolishness of the question, but...

Parcher, if there is a person who is doing some sort of work outside the boundaries of this site with a deck he isn't talking about, what would we be discussing with that person?

It reminds me of my cousin's girlfriend. She is apparently hot stuff and really good at pleasing him. But he won't tell us her name. And we aren't allowed to meet her.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 05:22 PM

So, basically, this is what happens?

1) Members nominate themselves for the position of BUZZards. This means that every person on the site is in the running, because we're all conceited bastards.

I strongly doubt that. It actually would require a signifigant time investment to do the job, and only those with a strong and active interest in the format would really have incentive to want the position.

2) Members vote on who gets to be a BUZZard. This means, we have one of two things:
a) everyone votes for themself.
b) Mods/Admins are left figuring out a way to select the winner.

I addressed this earlier.

If the nominees reaches a level, say, above 20 or 25, a thread can be opened in the adept forum for discussion about who's a serious candidate, based on forum activity first and foremost.

3) We establish BUZZards. Admins are now required to change permissions for these members, and for the ones who are now relinquishing the title.

4 times a year for 10 members. Perhaps every 4 months if that's too much work.

4) BUZZards vote on which threads go to the BUZZ forum. This takes forever, especially if NoVA gets a vote.

I really don't think it'd take forever. You'd have to establish some rules. For example;

When a new (the collective noun for Buzzards is Wake, so let's roll with that) Wake of BUZZards is elected;

Each person nominates one thread. Once all 10 threads are nominated, BUZZards vote. Each person has three votes. The top 5 win.

God forbid they have any self-interest in a particular thread, and they just nominate their own pet deck to improve discussion on it.

I addressed this also.

Why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Let somebody's pet deck have the spotlight; it won't win the support of the other SAs/BUZZards if it doesn't have some merit.

Mods/Admins are required to dig up the threads and move them, and move the old threads back to whence they came.

Again, I don't know how much work is involved in this, but it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to do every couple weeks to a month.

Bear in mind, this means a significant addition to the work required of the site staff - who, much to my dismay, can't even be convinced to demote inactive adepts.

Well, to be honest, the reward for demoting inactive adepts is virtually nil.

The potential rewards of my system are, I think, huge. Giving newer members a chance to influence the site and the format at large, while taking a more active hand in promoting new and under developed ideas, seems worth a little bit of work.

Slag

08-26-2008, 05:58 PM

I support Spatula's idea. I think that such a set up would highlight the two things the source does best: letting the more experienced players share their knowledge of and passion for the format, and bringing attention to new and creative ideas. It may seem like this is just putting a gun to adepts' heads to make them post more, but only people who are really excited about doing this project have to apply.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-26-2008, 06:53 PM

I'd also like to re-emphasize that I expect the BUZZards to be a mix of adepts and highly active regular members. Adepthood, and even tournament success, I think mean less for the position than sustained format interest.

The chief role of the adepts would be to help the mods sort through times when there are simply too many people who want the job. The mods can't keep track of everyone and every thread in extraordinary detail, so they'd need help figuring out who's serious enough about the format to warrant the position.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-26-2008, 07:09 PM

Rarrarrar.

We actually have multiple adepts with low post counts, so I can only assume you're referencing people that don't post at all in which case- Hi? Discussion forum?

Not every big name economics professor is a billionaire stud. As evidenced by the fact that they're professors, for instance.

Ancient Greek citizens (men only, grrrrrr) were required to serve in public office for a given amount of time. In our case, we would change out Greek citizens for active users with atleast, uhh say, 200 posts, selected in some essentially random fashion. These users would simply be placed on the BUZZard (cute) committee for a month. A simple post indicating who is on for that month should do. There is no need to change any account settings. It is up to the user to demonstrate some sort of ability and knowledge during his/her tenured time in the spotlight - especially towards the decks that are also highlighted at that time. Only BUZZards can sound off on the Buzz decks which should be chosen by the outgoing BUZZards. That way, the entire community can see who deserves to be an Adept. We could have IBA's annual voting system, but you are only eligible if you were a BUZZard that year.

My thoughts are as follows;

1) Randomness is not the same as fairness.

2) Post quantity is not post quality.

3) This seems really needlessly complex and high maintenance anyway.

Also, Athens is easily the most over-rated ancient Greek city-state.

Edit: For instance, check out Slivers kid at GenCon. I'm not going to knock the guy who won on playskill, even if the field at GenCon is high mass, low content. However, did anyone think, at least based on quotations, he provided any kind of eloquent reasoning on why to play Counter-Slivers?*

*Aside form the 40 duals thing. I know someone's going to say it, so I'll get it out there. But would that actually make an even decent post in the Meathooks thread?

Peter_Rotten

08-26-2008, 07:58 PM

Spat - did you get a chance to look at my modified version of your idea?

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=265757&postcount=97

Thoughts?

Pinder

08-26-2008, 08:13 PM

Thoughts?

I'm not Spat, but I would suggest [Spotlight] as the tag put before decks that get stickied if we do it this way. It's concise and immediately understandable and isn't some weird acronym.

So it would basically look like:
"[Spotlight] 5c Merfolk/Goblin Aggro Crusher Stompy"

Or something along those lines.

Slag

08-26-2008, 08:20 PM

I'm also not Spat, and while I think spotlighting promising deck threads is a good idea, it doesn't address as many of the concerns presented in this thread as well as Spat's idea. The buzz concept has the benefit of quelling some of the issues - to the extent that they are issues - around the adept position by giving particularly knowledgeable or active basic members a chance to take a larger role in the development process.

frogboy

08-26-2008, 08:46 PM

Having interesting threads highlighted is a good idea; I don't usually read the strat forums because there's too much noise, and this would help.

FoolofaTook

08-26-2008, 09:32 PM

It reminds me of my cousin's girlfriend. She is apparently hot stuff and really good at pleasing him. But he won't tell us her name. And we aren't allowed to meet her.

Hank. Her name is Hank.

Start a whispering campaign and he'll either let you meet her or stop talking about her at all.

Pinder

08-26-2008, 10:30 PM

Having interesting threads highlighted is a good idea; I don't usually read the strat forums because there's too much noise, and this would help.

This is pretty much why I like the idea as well. It would serve two purposes:

1. Sift the well-written ideas with merit and potential to the surface from the chaff.
1a. As a corollary, this would probably encourage people to be well-written and thought out in their posts, as well (hopefully)
2. Give Adepts something to do other than play MMM.

However, I would caution that the process be entirely voluntary, or at least streamlined to the point that it's not burdensome. I mean, Adepthood should mean something, sure, but keep in mind that this is a casual discussion forum for a pretendy-fun-time game, it shouldn't be a second job.

Ewokslayer

08-26-2008, 10:50 PM

Forgive the potential foolishness of the question, but...

Parcher, if there is a person who is doing some sort of work outside the boundaries of this site with a deck he isn't talking about, what would we be discussing with that person?

I believe Parcher was pointing out that the system rewards people that post a lot about a deck regardless of real merit. Where as someone that keeps their "tech" secret, wins with it and then comes to the source and talks about the logic of their choices and defends their choices is seen as less of an expert because they post less.

stalkerzero

08-26-2008, 10:51 PM

So we'll see Nourishing Lich get more focus directed at making it a DTB as a result of this idea?

I am incredibly excited about the idea of the developmental deck area getting some love.

Overall, as a newer member, I think the adepts do a good job. But I must admit, it took me a long, long time to figure out that they were actually titled people of the site and not just knowledgeable players.

Parcher

08-26-2008, 11:49 PM

I believe Parcher was pointing out that the system rewards people that post a lot about a deck regardless of real merit. Where as someone that keeps their "tech" secret, wins with it and then comes to the source and talks about the logic of their choices and defends their choices is seen as less of an expert because they post less.

This is exactly what I mean, but only in specific regards to Adept status. Doing so fills all of the requirements but one. Post count (I know you don't list it as such, but let's be honest). If the decisions made are all essentially correct regarding the deck, and you are able to intelligently explain and defend these choices, and have proven results from them, that alone should qualify. The fact that you didn't spend two months throwing ideas at the wall on site should be irrelevant.

And for the record Jack, no one has been made an Adept with a low post count in almost two years. Ever since tournament success was removed from the guidelines. In fact, excepting maybe two, all of the Adepts from that time have had exactly the opposite. High count, with no discernable deck or tournament results. Outside of MWS that is.

Ewokslayer

08-26-2008, 11:50 PM

This is exactly what I mean,

It's like I can see into your soul.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 12:01 AM

We have Adepts vote on 5 decks to develop from N&D. In other words, each Adept chooses 5 N&D decks that they think has potential. The top 5 decks are then presented to the general membership and they vote on their favorite. The two rounds of voting should take no longer than 3 or 4 days each. That winning deck then gets stickied to the top of the N&D forum for about a month with a fancy tag like DTFo (Deck to Focus on) or something like that. Then the community can work on that deck. Maybe - and I'm not sure about this - we can even donate a prize to anyone who can prove he has T8ed in a 33plus tourney with that chosen deck in the past month.

Benefits:
1. Gives Adepts more to do
2. Gives members more to do
3. Focuses on a likely to be ignored deck
3a. Promotes diversity

So where does my version succeed? Where does it fail? Does it gut Spat's original idea too much?

Well, to be honest, it seems

A) more complicated
B) it relies on the activity of people who are chosen for being adepts, rather than on people who are chosen for being, well, active. This A) makes it less reliable, as lots of adepts are either a)apathetic, b)ignorant of the existing metagame, c)both.

(I'd but myself under B, right now, for instance)

This also doesn't address either the populist complaints or the charges of regional bias and elitism(in fact, it encourages and validates those complaints).

Edit - Did I mention that I meant this as a replacement for the Q&A forum? That's a dying horse.

The Rack

08-27-2008, 12:25 AM

frogboy

08-27-2008, 03:04 AM

mean honestly I think we should rid of the post count number and join date as well because the more even playing field we are on the more comfortable and less elitist it will be. Reading through also made me realize that posts are ignored unless an Adept or Mod post.

See, I think this is a good thing, because a lot of posts are pretty useless. We have all these fourteen page threads that are really unwieldy and have all the useful information buried under random questions or comments.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-27-2008, 03:52 AM

Okay after reading through a lot of stuff, I've managed to find more reason to get rid of the adept status altogether, I mean honestly I think we should rid of the post count number and join date as well because the more even playing field we are on the more comfortable and less elitist it will be.

Well, it didn't work for 4chan.

Reading through also made me realize that posts are ignored unless an Adept or Mod post. I hoestly do not feel as recognized as another Adept. I think the whole Adept idea was good in theory, like having father figures kinda guide the misleaded however some of the Adepts themselves are misleaded too. I think that it gives too much power to those people.

I don't think you've been tracking the convo. The entire point is that adepts don't do anything. If you consider a special MMM forum to be empowerment, I guess.

People ignoring non-Adept posts is voluntary. In theory, they could ignore all Adpet posts and only pay attention to the non-Adepts. But perhaps they realize something we don't.

Also, if we never paid attention to non-Adept posts, people wouldn't get promoted to Adept from non-Adept.

Another truth is that I'm more likely to respond to an Adept post than a non-Adept, aside from overall quality issues, because most of the Adepts I know I can tear into when they're wrong and not worry about them taking it personally. Random people are much more likely to perceive a criticism as an attack.

I really don't like the idea of forums that only the Adepts can post in, I don't think that's how true Forums operate. If we're going to talk about something, let everyone talk about it not just a certain group. I'm really just trying to give an honest opinion and I hope you can all respect that.

If you're talking about the Buzz forum, as I understand it, everyone would be able to post.

Ewokslayer

08-27-2008, 07:26 AM

I really don't like the idea of forums that only the Adepts can post in, I don't think that's how true Forums operate. If we're going to talk about something, let everyone talk about it not just a certain group. I'm really just trying to give an honest opinion and I hope you can all respect that.
If you're talking about the Buzz forum, as I understand it, everyone would be able to post.

See, I read that as referring to the current Adept Lounge.
People seem to think that a lot goes on there.
They're wrong.
The most useful thing to happen in there recently is early planning of the Source Tournament in October that was then opened to anyone for suggestions.
Oh, and we talk about having sex with each other mom's.
It is very mature.

Zach Tartell

08-27-2008, 08:41 AM

Oh, FYI she gets really excited by scat play. I mean REALLY excited.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 08:58 AM

So, I think that we should embrace this new idea, mostly because I've already coined the term BUZZard, and now I'm attached to it.

Brehn

08-27-2008, 09:12 AM

I haven't read the entire thread and didn't read into Spatula's suggestions. I'll just show where I think the current system is unhealthy:

SECTION VI: DEMOTIONS OF LEGACY ADEPTS

Any MTS Legacy Adept, Moderator or Administrator may recommend that a Legacy Adept be demoted from Legacy Adept to "regular" forum user. Such a recommendation must be accompanied with grounds for this recommendation and shall be sent by Private Message (PM) to an Administrator or Moderator. Such grounds for demotion may include, but are not limited to: consistent violation of Forum Rules, including consistent or egregious inflammatory attacks of other forum users; extended account inactivity (45 or more days); misuse of Adept privileges; willful intellectual dishonesty or otherwise consistently contributing to these Forums in a hostile and/or unproductive manner.

Question: Have you ever demoted an adept because of inactivity?

As it is now, it looks like you just have to work to become an Adept, but once you are member of the club, you may do anything you want without being harmed (except for being a flaming troll, which should lead to a siteban anyway, adept or not). I think this is part of the reason why some members think of the adepts as an elitist friends-only club. Once you're in, you're good.

I'll give one example: quicksilver. (This is not a personal attack. Actually I have no idea who he is. He was just the first one to show up when I clicked on "Members List", I'm sure there are many other examples). Let's just check what he's done in the last year:

Search: Posts Made By: quicksilver ; Forum: Format Development and child forums
Showing results 1 to 25 of 47
47 relevant posts in one year? Why exactly is he still an adept?

xsockmonkeyx

08-27-2008, 09:28 AM

Well, it didn't work for 4chan.

WUT :confused: Imageboard ≠ forum. Also trip**** make baby jesus cry.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 09:32 AM

Question: Have you ever demoted an adept because of inactivity?
Answer - Yes, we've demoted quite a few people due to inactivity.

As it is now, it looks like you just have to work to become an Adept, but once you are member of the club, you may do anything you want without being harmed (except for being a flaming troll, which should lead to a siteban anyway, adept or not). I think this is part of the reason why some members think of the adepts as an elitist friends-only club. Once you're in, you're good.Should we be making it a chore to be rewarded for your contributions to the site? I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

I'll give one example: quicksilver. (This is not a personal attack. Actually I have no idea who he is. He was just the first one to show up when I clicked on "Members List", I'm sure there are many other examples). Let's just check what he's done in the last year:

47 relevant posts in one year? Why exactly is he still an adept?What makes you think the only place for relevant posts is in the format development section?

Edit - Also, to put it in perspective, Peter_Rotten (First in the post-count list) has 111 posts in the development forums in the last year. I (second in post-count) have 140. With the smallish amount of overall posts by our members, 45 posts isn't really that few. This isn't mtgSalvation, where members have 10k+ postcounts. Rotten doesn't even have 7k, and he spams the shit out of this board.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 09:35 AM

And for the record Jack, no one has been made an Adept with a low post count in almost two years. Ever since tournament success was removed from the guidelines. In fact, excepting maybe two, all of the Adepts from that time have had exactly the opposite. High count, with no discernable deck or tournament results. Outside of MWS that is.

It is like you just said, "Hey guys! My secret sligh list is awesome tier one goodness. It has a 110percent game against the current DTBs! Believe me, but I won't share it." Essentially you've made a ridiculous claim with no support. Name which Adepts you are talking about. Name the dates they where made into Adepts. When was tournament success removed from the guidelines? Which Adepts have a high post count, and what exactly is a high post count - 1000 posts? 500?

Once again, tournament success has nothing to do with discussion ability.

Okay after reading through a lot of stuff, I've managed to find more reason to get rid of the adept status altogether, I mean honestly I think we should rid of the post count number and join date as well because the more even playing field we are on the more comfortable and less elitist it will be. Reading through also made me realize that posts are ignored unless an Adept or Mod post. I hoestly do not feel as recognized as another Adept. I think the whole Adept idea was good in theory, like having father figures kinda guide the misleaded however some of the Adepts themselves are misleaded too. I think that it gives too much power to those people. I really don't like the idea of forums that only the Adepts can post in, I don't think that's how true Forums operate. If we're going to talk about something, let everyone talk about it not just a certain group. I'm really just trying to give an honest opinion and I hope you can all respect that.

This is your perception. I dare say that posts in this thread have been ignored for GOOD reasons.

There were some irrelevant posts; those should be ignored. Should I pay much attention to the Tartell quote? In fact, I even deleted some posts.

I'll only speak for myself here, and I'll try to do it as politely as possible. There are a few posts here that do not seem to be - um - carefully written. They are tough to read. If a member is not good at communicating, then guess what - he might be ignored. I'm getting a bit fired up about this, so I'm going to be THAT guy. When you type this:
I hoestly do not feel as recognized as another Adept. you should recognize that there could be other reasons (besides your name color) that you could be ignored.

When complaining about forums that you can't see, please realize that there a TON of forums that you can't see. The Great Lounge, The Mod Forum, The Reported Post Forum, The seven Team Forums, The Douche Forum, and The Deleted WoW Thread Forum. This doesn't even scratch the surface of the forums we turn on and off like the CaNGD forum or the dormant forums like the Casual Deck Forum or Trading Forum. There will always be forums that members, Adepts, and Mods don't get to see. Only the three Admins can see all the forums and that won't be changing anytime soon.

Post count only means something if you let it. I'll go change your post count. Please tell me if your ideas are treated differently because of it. Seriously... who gives a shit about post count? Aren't we all looking for post quality?

I got a bunch of RL things to do right now. I'll be back later.

xsockmonkeyx

08-27-2008, 09:44 AM

Seriously... who gives a shit about post count?

I actually don't bother reading most posts from people with low post counts. I'd just rather read people who are established as intelligent. It saves time and I believe someone with a post count of 2,000+ probably has a good idea of what they're talking about.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 09:48 AM

This site has over four thousand members - about one thousand active members, and you're going to focus on the opinion of ONE member? And BRYANT is that member? You've got bigger problems than your post count, killer.

xsockmonkeyx

08-27-2008, 09:50 AM

Stop dismissing this as a non-issue. This isnt for you, its for new members.

Brehn

08-27-2008, 09:52 AM

Answer - Yes, we've demoted quite a few people due to inactivity.

So why did you stop doing it? If you didn't, the measure should be a lot more strict in my opinion.

What makes you think the only place for relevant posts is in the format development section?

It is, with the exception of reports in the Tournament forum. Where else are relevant posts made?

Edit - Also, to put it in perspective, Peter_Rotten (First in the post-count list) has 111 posts in the development forums in the last year. I (second in post-count) have 140. With the smallish amount of overall posts by our members, 45 posts isn't really that few. This isn't mtgSalvation, where members have 10k+ postcounts. Rotten doesn't even have 7k, and he spams the shit out of this board.

Also, to put it in perspective and provide correct numbers:
Peter_Rotten - 243
Nightmare - 441
45 posts is really that few. Over the course of a year.

(did you mix up "Format Development" and "Format Discussion" somewhere?)

08-27-2008, 09:59 AM

Also, to put it in perspective and provide correct numbers:
Peter_Rotten - 243
Nightmare - 441
45 posts is really that few. Over the course of a year.

You also have to take into account that those two also happen to be the top two posters on the website. They post more than anyone on here, so take that with a little grain of salt when trying to justify your point.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 10:03 AM

So why did you stop doing it? If you didn't, the measure should be a lot more strict in my opinion.Your definition of inactive is wrong. Quicksilver is still on the site. That means he is not inactive. We can debate about the rigidity of the term, but in the staff's eyes (the ones that matter, as it were), if you're contributing, you're active.

It is, with the exception of reports in the Tournament forum. Where else are relevant posts made?Well, this one, for example.

Also, to put it in perspective and provide correct numbers:
Peter_Rotten - 243
Nightmare - 441
45 posts is really that few. Over the course of a year.

(did you mix up "Format Development" and "Format Discussion" somewhere?)No, I didn't. I listed them as threads, which is where the 140 came from.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 10:05 AM

Stop dismissing this as a non-issue. This isnt for you, its for new members.Why should it apply to one section of the membership and not another? I intend to continue dismissing it, because it IS a non-issue.

Brehn

08-27-2008, 10:07 AM

You also have to take into account that those two also happen to be the top two posters on the website. They post more than anyone on here, so take that with a little grain of salt when trying to justify your point.

...wat?

I didn't start with any comparison. Nightmare brought himself and Rotten (whose postcount is only that high because he spams MishMash...) up and provided incorrect numbers.

Whatever. I'll do some of the work to put those postcounts in some context:
Nihil Credo > 500, too much to display
Tacosnape > 500, too much to display
Pinder 377
Bryant Cook 346
Der_imaginäre_Freund 262
Zach Tartell 252
SpatulaOfTheAges 249
freakish777 226
Eldariel 206
Deep6er 170
TheInfamousBearAssassin 159 (he wasn't here for how many months?)
Obfuscate Freely 117

(this is also the right context. Neither Nightmare nor Peter_Rotten are "adepts" per say)

Edit:

Quicksilver is still on the site. That means he is not inactive. We can debate about the rigidity of the term, but in the staff's eyes (the ones that matter, as it were), if you're contributing, you're active.
Yep. My opinion is much different here. "Contributing" is more than 40 posts.

xsockmonkeyx

08-27-2008, 10:33 AM

Why should it apply to one section of the membership and not another? I intend to continue dismissing it, because it IS a non-issue.

A number of other members have expressed concerns over it as well, so apparently it IS an issue. Honestly you just don't get it.

Adam: consider the fact that YOU and your attitude are some of the biggest problems these forums face.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 10:43 AM

Stop dismissing this as a non-issue. This isnt for you, its for new members.

And which new members are using post count to dismiss ideas?

and Rotten (whose postcount is only that high because he spams MishMash...)

Which further supports that conclusion that post count doesn't mean much and we probably shouldn't care much about it.

Anyway, I think that I can probably kill the "post count-boohoo" argument dead. I just scanned through the Admin page and there is no readily apparent way to stop the board from recording post counts. Post counts are here to stay.

Next, I hope that all members - new and old - are able to judge posts on their own merit. Why do I stop and read an IBA post? Is it because of the color of his name? Why did I take BreathWeapon off of ignore? Was it because he became an Adept or hit a magical number of post counts? Nope. I started to find some worth in his ideas.

Now to further complicate matters, the Admin board has a User Reputation option. I have NOT reasearched that enough to fully understand how it will work and what-not, but I'm at least curious as to what it actually is. Imagine that I can set it up that when a user hit a certain reputation level, he got a new color for his name? Sooooo cooool.... :rolleyes: . However, it probably wouldn't mean that much since the Admins can change that too.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 10:45 AM

Adam: consider the fact that YOU and your attitude are some of the biggest problems these forums face.

Although I'll agree that Adam is going through his period this month, I dare say that he is usually one the more POSITIVE staff members. But his tolerance for whining is at an all time low.

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 10:53 AM

I think the only real issue here surrounds the benefits from achieving "Adept" status. It's not like people are looking to advance within a company. If you're looking for complimentary notice from your peers, do well in large tournaments and hold your accomplishment up high. It really doesn't matter either way.

You're either a winner or a loser at this game, competitively. There is no gray area.

08-27-2008, 11:00 AM

Although I'll agree that Adam is going through his period this month, I dare say that he is usually one the more POSITIVE staff members. But his tolerance for whining is at an all time low.

There seems to be a correlation between Adam's tolerance of whining dropping as the amount of member whining drastically increases.

I expect Randall Monroe to have a graph up, complete with explanation about this on Friday.

Adam: consider the fact that YOU and your attitude are some of the biggest problems these forums face.

This is arguably one of the greatest fallacies I've ever read on here. I'll just leave it at that. But if you want to push the moderator's buttons....

Nihil Credo

08-27-2008, 11:02 AM

Now to further complicate matters, the Admin board has a User Reputation option. I have NOT reasearched that enough to fully understand how it will work and what-not, but I'm at least curious as to what it actually is. Imagine that I can set it up that when a user hit a certain reputation level, he got a new color for his name? Sooooo cooool.... :rolleyes: . However, it probably wouldn't mean that much since the Admins can change that too.

I did a quick Google for "vBulletin reputation". What I found is that User Reputation is basically the Karma system I put up for suggestion earlier on.

Official guide: http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/reputation
Some forums admins discuss the use of Reputation: http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1271

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 11:08 AM

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t234/AdamNightmare/whining.jpg

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 11:12 AM

I'm a big fan of any graph that breaks past the arbitrary limits of my monitor.

/bigprops

But hopefully no new member ignores my post because of my low post count.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 11:15 AM

I did a quick Google for "vBulletin reputation". What I found is that User Reputation is basically the Karma system I put up for suggestion earlier on.

Official guide: http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/reputation
Some forums admins discuss the use of Reputation: http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1271

This could be a rather interesting experiment; however, I imagine it could create even more whining.

Zach Tartell

08-27-2008, 11:15 AM

I'm a big fan of any graph that breaks past the arbitrary limits of my monitor.

/bigprops

But hopefully no new member ignores my post because of my low post count.

Pyshwa, who do you think you are, n00b? Talk to me when your post count is 2000+

Volt

08-27-2008, 11:25 AM

Brehn

08-27-2008, 11:28 AM

Time to get some additional, new (as in 'not-burned out yet'), Mods?

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 11:29 AM

Predictably, this thread has pretty much turned into a big circle-jerk for the existing mods and/or Adepts. I like most of y'all on some level, but can't you just go stroke each other off in the Adept Lounge or whatever the fuck you call it? Seriously.

What, exactly, do you expect from us at this point? We've gotten some suggestions on potential ways to improve the system, and now we're considering their implications and ways to impliment them. At the same time, we're defending ourselves from the outcries of "BIAS!!!" Is there something more you think we should be doing?

xsockmonkeyx

08-27-2008, 11:38 AM

This is arguably one of the greatest fallacies I've ever read on here. I'll just leave it at that. But if you want to push the moderator's buttons....

You are blinded by your friendship. If you replaced all of Nightmare's posts in this thread with my name and avatar you would think, "gee, what an ass".

I honestly believe its time for a few moderators to step aside, for the better of the community at large.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 11:42 AM

I honestly believe its time for a few moderators to step aside, for the better of the community at large.

Name names or stfu.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 11:43 AM

Which further supports that conclusion that post count doesn't mean much and we probably shouldn't care much about it.

Is there any way to hide it?

Speaking only for myself, the only time I even notice post count is when I suspect someone of being a troll.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 11:44 AM

Is there any way to hide it?

Speaking only for myself, the only time I even notice post count is when I suspect someone of being a troll.

I can't find one. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I am really looking.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 11:48 AM

You are blinded by your friendship. If you replaced all of Nightmare's posts in this thread with my name and avatar you would think, "gee, what an ass".

I honestly believe its time for a few moderators to step aside, for the better of the community at large.Far be it from me to prove anyone right, but at the risk of being an elitist asshole, and due to my own credibility and position being attacked, I've gotta ask:

Who are you, and what have you done for this site and/or format?

Cause honestly, my patience is wearing thin.

Volt

08-27-2008, 11:49 AM

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 11:49 AM

I don't think this is necessary, and everyone is kind of turning into an ass hole.

I mean, really, over post count? Why would either side of an argument over post count get upset?

....I think people need a Unicorn Shower.

08-27-2008, 11:50 AM

You are blinded by your friendship. If you replaced all of Nightmare's posts in this thread with my name and avatar you would think, "gee, what an ass".

I honestly believe its time for a few moderators to step aside, for the better of the community at large.

Friendship really has nothing to do with that. I debated mentioning that in my post, but was assuming someone would actually believe I wasn't stupid enough to think that through before posting. It's the fact that, as a moderator, he does (did?) more work than the rest of us. He have an attitude? Wouldn't you if you were trying to defend yourself?

Volt

08-27-2008, 11:52 AM

ACME_Myst

08-27-2008, 11:54 AM

Cause honestly, my patience is wearing thin.

At the risk of getting my account kicked because of this, I'll still say it:

WTF dude? Wasn't this thread meant to evaluate and critique the current system of, let's say.. "leadership and honoured members"?

This is exactly what's going on now. Why is your patience running thin because of this?

Bryant Cook

08-27-2008, 11:58 AM

At the risk of getting my account kicked because of this, I'll still say it:

WTF dude? Wasn't this thread meant to evaluate and critique the current system of, let's say.. "leadership and honoured members"?

This is exactly what's going on now. Why is your patience running thin because of this?

It's one thing to criticize or give a suggestion, it's crossing that line when you call the people who run and maintain the site an asshole, ass, ect. Show some respect people.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 12:01 PM

Look, call me an ass if you want. That's fine, and probably true.

But FUCK YOU if you honestly believe that I'm the (or one of the)
biggest problems these forums face.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 12:04 PM

Actually, I have to say, the mods have acted extremely childish in this thread.

If you feel that the line has been crossed, then lock the thread. Referring to people's complaints when they feel them to be legitimate as "whining" IS unnecessarily rude and hostile.

Lock the thread or take the higher road. But don't round up your little power posse.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 12:07 PM

ACME_Myst

08-27-2008, 12:10 PM

Look, call me an ass if you want. That's fine, and probably true.

But FUCK YOU if you honestly believe that I'm the (or one of the)

You're (generally) not an ass. Currently, however, you are being one, and I think that that's what xsockmonkeyx meant.. Your attitude right now is dismissing very relevant points (in the eyes of multiple members). If this thread is supposed to lead to a better forum and community, dismissing ideas like that IS a big problem for the site as a whole. That's not saying you don't do your modding job well, it's just referring to this thread.

FoolofaTook

08-27-2008, 12:13 PM

I'm not sure I understand the whole individual bias issue. People are going to be biased whether or not they're labeled adepts or not. Do we really expect that conferring the status of adept upon somebody is going to somehow elevate their discourse beyond the normal constraints that exist on it?

I'm much more concerned about the bias that an adept system creates towards a shared status quo than about the bias of any individual poster, adept or otherwise....

Sorry to edit your post but we have like 5 issues going on in this thread already - let's not bring that one in too!

-PR

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 12:15 PM

Point me to a place (aside from the graph, which is an obvious joke)

Jokes are not always harmless, and the phrase '"Just" joking' never applies to reality.

Using sarcasm, and going at lengths to use sarcasm, smacks of teenage angst, and is clearly meant to demean and insult the other person. It is NOT what I would expect from either you as an individual, or any moderator on this site. And you should not be surprised that your insult hit.

Belgareth

08-27-2008, 12:17 PM

@Peter (or any other admin): The post counts can be turned off, made only visible in profile etc. However it's not a simple task and can't be done in the admin CP easily.
It involves a certain amount of code editing or a "hack" to do it well and without issues.

It shouldn't really matter, as anyone who can't pick out good content without looking at post count is probably not worth the time anyway.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 12:18 PM

Post count issue = whining. And now it's pretty much a dead issue since since I really scoured the Admin page and finally figured out HOW to do it but Zilla is the only Admin with the ability/permssion to do it.
People ignore me because I'm not an Adept. I call bullshit on this one.
Mods are burnt out and some have a bad attitude. Maybe, but name some names and specifics if you have a complaint. Don't make over-arching, generic, unsupported claims.
Revamping/New Ideas = a worthwhile discussion
Adept program? Worth it or not = worthwhile discussion
The last two bullets are the ones that I'd like to continue discussing.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 12:18 PM

The only point I've dismissed is that getting rid of post counts will somehow reduce the elitism on this site. It won't. People are exclusive by nature. There is a social hierarchy established in every group. If it isn't done by post count, it will be done by something else. Join date, whatever. If you want to believe that creating a forum where no one has a distinction from others, and everyone is on the same field of play, will create a better environment for posting, then I say you're kidding yourself. What it will do is create a signal-to-noise ratio that is virtually insurmountable, because there will be little way to tell the difference between someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who is spouting bullshit. If, in your mind, you make a distinction between the two, and create a subset of posters who are "worth listening to," then we're back at square one, and the point of the system is lost.

Please, tell me where I'm wrong. This is me being open to discussion.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 12:23 PM

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 12:31 PM

I don't disagree with your point, only your method of making that point.
That's fine. There are times I disagree with your methods as well, which is only natural. Not that it's any justification, but I've only been antagonistic after being called the site's biggest problem.

I strongly believe that in recent times, I've worked harder for the site and by extension, the format, than any other single person (save maybe a handful - and by a handful, I mean Bardo). Call it egotistical if you want, but it's true in my mind.
Having that work not only called into question, but outright dismissed as invalid, and told that I'm the problem, pisses me off in a way I didn't exactly expect to have to deal with.

xsockmonkeyx

08-27-2008, 12:36 PM

Adam: you know that I like you, and I've told you this. But consider that you being in a position of power here may not be the best thing for the site (and there is a considerable chance that I am dead wrong). I KNOW that I cant do what you guys do, and would be terrible at it. But being this abrasive is stifling, and not what I would consider to be good qualities for a leader.

I apologize for if Ive hurt anyones feelings, that was never my intention.

I will now walk away from this thread as I feel that it would be better for everyone if I did.

Have a nice day.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 12:39 PM

I mean, if we want to talk about anger, how do you think I feel that everyone and their mom has been credited with developing my deck? I can sympathize with anger.

But unfortunately, because you are a moderator, the mantle of leadership means not letting your anger get the best of you, I think.

It's like if the president used the State of the Union address to have at it with some random citizen. The powers aren't equal. You should not be flinging mud with random users, because there are a host of people who will listen to you and suck up just because you're a mod, and the random user has no adequate way of dealing with that.

It is, in fact, Bleweissish behavior.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 12:41 PM

So, why don't we move one with something useful now?

Parcher

08-27-2008, 12:42 PM

It is like you just said, "Hey guys! My secret sligh list is awesome tier one goodness. It has a 110percent game against the current DTBs! Believe me, but I won't share it." Essentially you've made a ridiculous claim with no support.

This is total bullshit and completely ignores my point. No one execpt possibly you could have inferred this from my statement when I pointedly said that the deck or decks referred to did well in tournaments. That alone would have likely gotten them listed here. But more importantly, I specifically wrote that the person or persons doing so then posted the decks themselves here on this site, and had detailed their choices and reasoning behind them in discussions here.

Since my point was missed, it was more that the relevant work was given less "weight" due to it not being in the DTB or Established forums.

Name which Adepts you are talking about. Name the dates they where made into Adepts. When was tournament success removed from the guidelines? Which Adepts have a high post count, and what exactly is a high post count - 1000 posts? 500?

Once again, tournament success has nothing to do with discussion ability.

Whatever. I'll do some of the work to put those postcounts in some context:
Nihil Credo > 500, too much to display
Tacosnape > 500, too much to display
Pinder 377
Bryant Cook 346
Der_imaginäre_Freund 262
Zach Tartell 252
SpatulaOfTheAges 249
freakish777 226
Eldariel 206
Deep6er 170
TheInfamousBearAssassin 159 (he wasn't here for how many months?)
Obfuscate Freely 117

Here's a good slice. More than half these people were made Adepts in the past year. Of the ones who weren't, two are famous for internet debate which leads to the high post count. And one doesn't have a high post count. The rest are only on there because of their post count.

Fact: Not to put too fine a point on it, for example, one had a tremendous run of tournament success, but was not promoted until recently because his post count was considered too low.

Fact: The quality over quantity arguement doesn't work either. Another nominee who overqualifes in deck, format, and Magic knowledge, with the tournament success to back it up, and post extremely well on said subjects was not voted in as an Adept recently. The required reasoning by most? Very low post count.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 12:44 PM

But consider that you being in a position of power here may not be the best thing for the siteWhy? I think it's reasonable for me to ask for an explaination.

But being this abrasive is stifling, and not what I would consider to be good qualities for a leader.Do me a favor. Go back through the thread, and find the point at which I went from being the same person I always am (that being a sarcastic realist), to an abrasive stifler of thought. Then look at the posts that came before it. Come back, and we'll discuss.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 12:44 PM

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 12:49 PM

Here's a good slice. More than half these people were made Adepts in the past year. Of the ones who weren't, two are famous for internet debate which leads to the high post count. And one doesn't have a high post count. The rest are only on there because of their post count.

Fact: Not to put too fine a point on it, for example, one had a tremendous run of tournament success, but was not promoted until recently because his post count was considered too low.

Fact: The quality over quantity arguement doesn't work either. Another nominee who overqualifes in deck, format, and Magic knowledge, with the tournament success to back it up, and post extremely well on said subjects was not voted in as an Adept recently. The required reasoning by most? Very low post count.

You're lack of names is maddening. Which memebers/Adepts are you talking about? I look at that list and I'm not sure which Adepts were promoted in the past year! At what date was Tacosnape made an Adept? What date ObFreely? Spat? Freakish? What is the exact post count at which we judge a member worthy of Adepthood?

You points hold little weight without specifics.

Shriekmaw

08-27-2008, 12:50 PM

I actually don't bother reading most posts from people with low post counts. I'd just rather read people who are established as intelligent. It saves time and I believe someone with a post count of 2,000+ probably has a good idea of what they're talking about. Theres the occasional Cavius, but people know whos a giant ass.

I was going through this thread finally and just can't believe what I'm reading. Honestly, someone with a high post count is more creatible than someone that actually might be good at this game?

I know a lot of players that play legacy with low post counts, but that doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. I think the best way to be a creatible source is to look at tournament results.

Some people just post in order to brag about it or they state that they are right b/c they post more than another person. This is not a healthy way to grow the Legacy community.

The whole post count should be thrown out the window in my opinion.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 12:52 PM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-27-2008, 12:54 PM

Speaking as an (semi)official Special Operations Psychological Warfare Specialist, I'm going to say that people make jokes, generally, because they think that the joke will be funny, and that they think that something is funny for pretty much only two reasons;

1) It's true.
2) It's the exact opposite of truth.

People want to tell the truth, either way. It's a deep-rooted desire. Maintaining a lie creates cognitive dissonance and makes people unhappy on some level. They are compelled to tell the truth. So in actual practice, most deception doesn't take the form of obfuscation, but of concealment and misdirection; liars tell the truth and then try to convince you not to pay attention to it. "It's just a joke" is a milder version of this; people are often more blunt and honest in their jokes than in casual conversation.

Also, WWII was started by a bologne sandwich, if anyone's interested in the story.

Although P_R has impressed me with his behavior a lot lately. He's not the same giant jerkface who banned me for two days.

Adam, sadly, has had his gentle spirit crushed by the weight of the world.

I'm not addressing the main point of the thread anymore because it's become boring, and convolutedly circular. We should go with my election idea.

Whit3 Ghost

08-27-2008, 01:00 PM

You're lack of names is maddening. Which memebers/Adepts are you talking about? I look at that list and I'm not sure which Adepts were promoted in the past year! At what date was Tacosnape made an Adept? What date ObFreely? Spat? Freakish? What is the exact post count at which we judge a member worthy of Adepthood?

You points hold little weight without specifics.
I believe the second example is referring to Goobafish. I'm not so sure about the first, it might be Zach.

Anyway, the biggest problem I've seen here is what Parcher is getting at. People who believe that they are experts on a subject simply by posting in a thread a bunch of times. I believe it was around the time of Columbus when Paul Nicolo who T8ed the GP with UGR Threshold was met with heavy skepticism on the subject of his list because people didn't know who he was and had just recently registered.
Edit- Links are tech: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=136518#post136518

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 01:02 PM

Ya know, I forgot that it was YOU that started this thread in the first place! I'm rethinking that two-day ban right now.

Zach Tartell

08-27-2008, 01:04 PM

So, wait - is Daemon saying that I'm only teal because of post count? I don't understand.

Parcher

08-27-2008, 01:09 PM

You're lack of names is maddening. Which memebers/Adepts are you talking about? I look at that list and I'm not sure which Adepts were promoted in the past year! At what date was Tacosnape made an Adept? What date ObFreely? Spat? Freakish? What is the exact post count at which we judge a member worthy of Adepthood?

You points hold little weight without specifics.

I guess that you concede my original point regarding work done off-site, or that you're ignoring it.

But in regards to names, are you being obtuse? It's quite easy for you to look up when people were promoted, I can do it. So I won't cop to that. And I'm not going to go into whom might have 3,000+ posts without any results to back up what they say. Again, easy to look up.

But as to recent and specific Adept changes? Zach had four Top 8's in the past year. But, he wasn't promoted a year ago when nominated. Instead it was very recently. The reasoning in the vote was that he was too new, and his countwas too low. Disregard if you will that over 90% of his current posts are in Mish-Mash.

The second person who was declined that I refer to is, I'm sure known to you, but you want names on this thread. Geoff Smelski.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 01:11 PM

I guess that you concede my original point regarding work done off-site, or that you're ignoring it.

Nope - doing one thing at a time.

I But in regards to names, are you being obtuse? It's quite easy for you to look up when people were promoted, I can do it. So I won't cop to that. And I'm not going to go into whom might have 3,000+ posts without any results to back up what they say. Again, easy to look up.

So you'll make a ridiculous claim and then I have to do the leg-work for it? It doesn't work that way. If it will make you support your arguments, then let's say that I am very obtuse and I need it ALL spelled out for me.

Right now you have plenty of snide insinuations that you expect me to support.

But as to recent and specific Adept changes? Zach had four Top 8's in the past year. But, he wasn't promoted a year ago when nominated. Instead it was very recently. The reasoning in the vote was that he was too new, and his count was too low. Disregard if you will that over 90% of his current posts are in Mish-Mash.

First, I'd like to ask you how do you know anything about how and why Zach was or wasn't promoted.

The second person who was declined that I refer to is, I'm sure known to you, but you want names on this thread. Geoff Smelski.

And do you know why? His post count was too low. Sorry - I couldn't resist. I think you are attempting to return to the argument that great players should be adepts. But we need to keep in mind that that quality is likely the least important for Adepthood here. Why? Because it's a discussion forum where one's ability to intelligently discuss Legacy is rewarded with access to The Great Lounge, the ability to post in the Q&A, and a teal name-tag.

Finn

08-27-2008, 01:19 PM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-27-2008, 01:20 PM

The dissemination of information is a crucial problem that affects all levels and layers of reality, I'm afraid. It's for this reason that we generally employ Occam's Razor; to shave away all unnecessary assumptions and go with the simplest answer that works.

There could, even now, be a howling wave of death riding towards our Solar System from a Gamma Ray Burst a few light years away. But we have no way of knowing this or acting upon it until it reaches us and wipes out three quarters of life on the planet. What then to do? I guess we have to function as we weren't all about to be sent to the Thunder Dome.

Someone's off-site contributions are, at best, hard to verify. Usually this is impossible, at least with the level of effort most people on this site are willing to do. And the reason that they're hard to verify is fairly simple; it doesn't affect the discussion forum. In fact, playskill barely does. What does matter on the discussion forum that is the Source is strategic and analytical depth and knowledge. It is for this reason that in the current system, the primary weight is placed upon demonstrated understanding of the format, such as for people who push an unknown deck that later becomes well-accepted, even if they themselves did not pilot it, or there are discrepencies between their lists and the winning ones.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 01:26 PM

sorry for the bump - I just edited a ton into my above post.

Zach Tartell

08-27-2008, 01:28 PM

Parcher, I could probably paint a pretty convincing picture of why tournament success, taken alone, is a pretty poor indicator of value to this forum. I am hoping that you will concede that point. If that is the case, can't we just chalk Zach's promotion delay to the adepts doing what comes natural? They waited to see if he would be an asset to the site. If that is so we can move on to P_R's agenda for the topic.

Loser! I dug through my posts, and came up with this:

Team Forums: 500+. This includes the time I worked as a Judge in the CANGD thing, but I can say without even a shred of shame that I prolly have 700-800 posts within the EPIC team forum alone. I don't feel like that's a bad thing, though. That's what team forums are for. Testing, discussing, bitching. Whatever.

A meager 76 posts come from the Adept Forum (and that may ahve gone up a whole one since I did the search).

379 come from Mishmash. I thought that'd be more. Who knew?

345 posts in Deck Development (N&D, ED, and DTB). Of those, though, prolly 60-100 are in Enchantress. Maybe not that high, but I'm not gonna dig through and actually count. And I can't search specifically in the Enchantress thread.

And then 500+ in the Community, Tournament, and Card Ruling forums. That has to come from a lot of +1ery relating to my own tournament reports or trash talk within tournament threads. I am almost too embarrassed to search my posts for those that are only "Sick burn!".

See? that worked out well. It's not too horrendous.

Also, I'm totally awesome and wrecked shit up to get the teal, dudes. Maybe you should just 4-0-2 the swiss of three consecutive tournaments. That seems like a good policy. If somebody can not lose a match in three reported tournaments I'll nominate them. Sound fair?

Parcher

08-27-2008, 01:29 PM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-27-2008, 01:29 PM

That's what team forums are for. Testing,

rlly?

Oshitwe'vebeendoingitwrong.

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 01:31 PM

379 come from Mishmash. I thought that'd be more. Who knew?

Biggest surprise to me was that you've only racked up about 150 posts in the Reported Posts thread.

This is an excellent point. However, shouldn't tournament success with said deck demonstrate understanding of the format? Not only through correct deck selection and knowledge of the deck, but also knowledge of the match-ups faced?Sure. And it does. But what good is it to us, as a discussion board, if they can't (or don't) effectively communicate that knowledge to the rest of us?

Brehn

08-27-2008, 01:36 PM

I'm absolutely with Nightmare here. Success in tournaments should not be a wildcard for adepthood.

What I don't understand though: why is the promotion of a person rejected because of his low post count, when at the same time there are adepts with a lower postcount that don't get demoted?

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 01:39 PM

To the point of airing whatever dirty laundry we seem to have:

The reason Geoff wasn't promoted had only a tangental connection with his post count - the truth is, he doesn't own a computer, and has little interest in being involved with the site on a regular basis. That isn't the image we have in mind of what an adept should be, and so we decided to hold off on his promotion for the time being. There's nothing sinister there.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 01:42 PM

This is an excellent point. However, shouldn't tournament success with said deck demonstrate understanding of the format? Not only through correct deck selection and knowledge of the deck, but also knowledge of the match-ups faced?

Also, if the creation/improvement of the deck is done off-site, but full disclosure, discussion, and reasoning is done after success with the deck here on The Source, should not that also count as demonstrable knowledge?

But at the same time, what does any of this do for the site? What does it matter (for discussion) if JoeShmoe wins with Slivers at GenCon and doesn't make a single post here. What should we acknowledge about Joe's success other than saying, hey good job?

///

I'm going to try again with your original point.

And for the record Jack, no one has been made an Adept with a low post count in almost two years. Ever since tournament success was removed from the guidelines. In fact, excepting maybe two, all of the Adepts from that time have had exactly the opposite. High count, with no discernable deck or tournament results. Outside of MWS that is.

We need to clear up some terms/things here before I can better respond:

1. What do you consider "low post count"?
1a. What is "high post count"?
2. Which Adepts have been promoted in the last two years?
2a. Are we considering "two years" to start from today and go back until Aug 2006 or are we considering two years to be the 07/08 years?
3. When was tournament success removed from the Adept guidelines (if it was ever there)?
4. In your 3rd sentence, you say "Adepts from that time." Which "time" are you refering to?
5. What exactly is "exactly the opposite" of tournament success? I would assume "tournament failure" - which, of course, should also be fully defined. Is a string of 9th places considered tournament failure? Is only going 0-X tournament failure?

Can you see why I'm getting frustrated with your claims? They are unsubtantiated and vague. Define and expand them so that we can make some progress.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-27-2008, 01:50 PM

This is an excellent point. However, shouldn't tournament success with said deck demonstrate understanding of the format? Not only through correct deck selection and knowledge of the deck, but also knowledge of the match-ups faced?

But it's not tangible. Maybe the person is an idiot-savant that only knows how to play intuitively, and can never transfer this knowledge to another. How then does it benefit the site and the community at large?

Also, if the creation/improvement of the deck is done off-site, but full disclosure, discussion, and reasoning is done after success with the deck here on The Source, should not that also count as demonstrable knowledge?

Of course it should. However, I get the feeling that you're going to refer to a bunch of one-offs here, so we come to the other problem; decks in Legacy don't get the massive gammut of tournament testing that decks in other formats do. Legacy tournaments are less common, and most of them are lost to the mists of time. And most are small enough to be completely weighted by what a few people chose to play. This means that when we speak of "results" we are necessarily speaking of shakier subject matter than when I say, "Well, Faeries won 9 PTQs this week, it's obviously the deck to beat in Block". A lot of the instances you're probably thinking of involve people getting really questionable once-off success, and being unwilling to explain or rationalize deck decisions or certain criticisms. And given the frequency with which these decks then fall off the radar, can people be blamed for being skeptical? When was the last time anyone played The Game? But that had two GP T8's to it's credit.

Finn

08-27-2008, 02:10 PM

Loser! I dug through my posts, and came up with this:

Team Forums: 500+. This includes the time I worked as a Judge in the CANGD thing, but I can say without even a shred of shame that I prolly have 700-800 posts within the EPIC team forum alone. I don't feel like that's a bad thing, though. That's what team forums are for. Testing, discussing, bitching. Whatever.

A meager 76 posts come from the Adept Forum (and that may ahve gone up a whole one since I did the search).

379 come from Mishmash. I thought that'd be more. Who knew?

345 posts in Deck Development (N&D, ED, and DTB). Of those, though, prolly 60-100 are in Enchantress. Maybe not that high, but I'm not gonna dig through and actually count. And I can't search specifically in the Enchantress thread.

And then 500+ in the Community, Tournament, and Card Ruling forums. That has to come from a lot of +1ery relating to my own tournament reports or trash talk within tournament threads. I am almost too embarrassed to search my posts for those that are only "Sick burn!".

See? that worked out well. It's not too horrendous.

Also, I'm totally awesome and wrecked shit up to get the teal, dudes. Maybe you should just 4-0-2 the swiss of three consecutive tournaments. That seems like a good policy. If somebody can not lose a match in three reported tournaments I'll nominate them. Sound fair?Zach, I don't know you, but I don't give a rat's ass about most of this discussion - most of all the post count crap. So I hope you were being sarcastic as usual here.

@Parcher, by your logic we should make this guy an adept.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=77592&d=1219860452
Gadiel Szleifer
Let me remind you of his illustrious accomplishments in Legacy: Top 8 at GP Columbus

Notable quotes:
How much work did you put in for the format?
None

How big a factor was Hulk Flash in your testing?
Running it but none - didn't test

Do you think Flash needs to be banned in Legacy?
Who cares?

frogboy

08-27-2008, 02:13 PM

What I don't understand though: why is the promotion of a person rejected because of his low post count, when at the same time there are adepts with a lower postcount that don't get demoted?

Because the main point is to promote people for facilitating intelligent discussion. If someone wins a bunch of tournaments and is obviously a master, that's cool, but not really useful unless he's posting about it to some reasonable degree. I don't remember the exact circumstances nor do I remember number of posts, but as this sort of thing is at least to some degree a case by case basis, if you were more specific I could probably answer the question.

I think post counts, titles, colors, are all good things. Most of the DTB threads, etc, are crammed full of people with new ideas and old questions that have been addressed and basically a whole lot of fairly useless stuff. I scan the thread for the obviously intelligent posters who post relatively frequently, and read just their posts and replies and get the information I need in a much more efficient fashion.

edit: Actually, a better example than Gadiel would be GerryT; GT has an account here and made a few posts in I think Goblins-related threads a couple years ago, and is also just actually a master. He could win every legacy tournament in New England for months and we wouldn't promote him unless he was also contributing to discussion.

Parcher

08-27-2008, 03:01 PM

But at the same time, what does any of this do for the site? What does it matter (for discussion) if JoeShmoe wins with Slivers at GenCon and doesn't make a single post here. What should we acknowledge about Joe's success other than saying, hey good job?

For at least the third time; if they post here after the success of a deck that had no development here, and explain their deck choices, match-ups, card selection, sideboard, and participate in reasoning and discussion on the above all after said tournament, I think it should have as much weight if all was done on-site for numerous posts ahead of time.

1. What do you consider "low post count"?

I don't have an opinion on this. Many others do though. It is the voicing of this opinion that I am refering to.

1a. What is "high post count"?

To me, over three a day avarage.

2. Which Adepts have been promoted in the last two years?

A lot. Nihil, Tacosnape, Pinder, Bryant, Zach, Der, freakish, Illisius, and Eldariel are the first to come to mind.

2a. Are we considering "two years" to start from today and go back until Aug 2006 or are we considering two years to be the 07/08 years?

The latter.

3. When was tournament success removed from the Adept guidelines (if it was ever there)?

This is a point of contention I'm sure. I know at least since Bardo revised the guidelines that it has been at least minimalized. And I am certain that it isn't a requirement. A perfect example of what previously was happening with promotion would be Gearhart, who was promoted with 40 posts.

4. In your 3rd sentence, you say "Adepts from that time." Which "time" are you refering to?

Before 2007.

5. What exactly is "exactly the opposite" of tournament success? I would assume "tournament failure" - which, of course, should also be fully defined. Is a string of 9th places considered tournament failure? Is only going 0-X tournament failure?

No, failure is not necessarily the opposite. Not ever playing in any tournaments is more what I was referring to. Posting and playing online seems to be more to the reality of most. At least participating in tournaments occasionally would suggest a vested interest in the format. And the "no tournaments" argument does not hold water. I regularly drive 9+ hours to tournaments. People drove two days to get to GenCon.

But it's not tangible. Maybe the person is an idiot-savant that only knows how to play intuitively, and can never transfer this knowledge to another. How then does it benefit the site and the community at large?

Of course it should. However, I get the feeling that you're going to refer to a bunch of one-offs here, so we come to the other problem; decks in Legacy don't get the massive gammut of tournament testing that decks in other formats do. Legacy tournaments are less common, and most of them are lost to the mists of time. And most are small enough to be completely weighted by what a few people chose to play. This means that when we speak of "results" we are necessarily speaking of shakier subject matter than when I say, "Well, Faeries won 9 PTQs this week, it's obviously the deck to beat in Block". A lot of the instances you're probably thinking of involve people getting really questionable once-off success, and being unwilling to explain or rationalize deck decisions or certain criticisms. And given the frequency with which these decks then fall off the radar, can people be blamed for being skeptical? When was the last time anyone played The Game? But that had two GP T8's to it's credit.

Your'e right of course. But there are two instances which fall outside of these guidlines. First, when it is not a one-off. When the same person keep successes with the same deck, and returns to The Source arfter each fo these to explain their revisions and the reasoning behind them. Smelski again comes to mind. Caplan is another.

The other is when it is not a one-off, but a different deck piloted by the same person. To me, this gives an example of an even broader knowledge of the format. This again assumes that said deck and tournament were brought to discussion on this site.

And I won our local tournament with The Game last week. You should of been there.

Deep6er

08-27-2008, 03:25 PM

Bullshit. That was a top 4 split. I totally crushed you with Team America in the swiss too. :)

Parcher

08-27-2008, 03:30 PM

The fuck you did. Your deck lost to Living Wish, sac LED, discard my hand, Shreikmaw gets in for sixteen.

Punk. :)

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 03:53 PM

For at least the third time; if they post here after the success of a deck that had no development here, and explain their deck choices, match-ups, card selection, sideboard, and participate in reasoning and discussion on the above all after said tournament, I think it should have as much weight if all was done on-site for numerous posts ahead of time.

...as long as they do it three times a day average?

In reference to low post count, you say this:

I don't have an opinion on this. Many others do though. It is the voicing of this opinion that I am refering to

This is a bit tangental, but how can you have an opinion about high post count but not low post count? Plus, your following posts seem to imply you do value post count and have an opinion about it:

I do have one issue with the current Adept guidlines. It rewards people who write, not those who do...

no one has been made an Adept with a low post count in almost two years... High count, with no discernable deck or tournament results.

More than half these people were made Adepts in the past year. Of the ones who weren't, two are famous for internet debate which leads to the high post count. And one doesn't have a high post count. The rest are only on there because of their post count.

Fact: Not to put too fine a point on it, for example, one had a tremendous run of tournament success, but was not promoted until recently because his post count was considered too low.

Fact: The quality over quantity arguement doesn't work either. Another nominee who overqualifes in deck, format, and Magic knowledge, with the tournament success to back it up, and post extremely well on said subjects was not voted in as an Adept recently. The required reasoning by most? Very low post count.

The reasoning in the vote was that he was too new, and his countwas too low.
Which begs the question: how can you not define (or have an opinion about) low post count but point it out and complain that someone was not promoted because of it.

What is low post count to you?

Anyway, this brings us back to the question, how do you even know some of this "information?" "Information" is in quotes since it seems more like hearsay than anything you can prove.

A lot. Nihil, Tacosnape, Pinder, Bryant, Zach, Der, freakish, Illisius, and Eldariel are the first to come to mind.

And your problem with these promotions/Adepts is what again? That they don't deserve their status because they have not created a new deck, T8ed with it, and than posted about it - but not too much? Which one do you believe doesn't deserve his status? Let's look at Tacosnape. He created DragonStompy, did well at tournies with it, and posted quality info before and after his success with that deck. How about Bryant? Shouldn't he be credited with TES? Pinder? Slivers development? Nihil? Der?

This is a point of contention I'm sure. I know at least since Bardo revised the guidelines that it has been at least minimalized. And I am certain that it isn't a requirement. A perfect example of what previously was happening with promotion would be Gearhart, who was promoted with 40 posts.

So your problem is that the guidelines have changed? And when was Gearhart promoted? Could it possibly be before any of the members you listed?

No, failure is not necessarily the opposite. Not ever playing in any tournaments is more what I was referring to. Posting and playing online seems to be more to the reality of most. At least participating in tournaments occasionally would suggest a vested interest in the format. And the "no tournaments" argument does not hold water. I regularly drive 9+ hours to tournaments. People drove two days to get to GenCon.

So essentially you want Adepts held to your standards, not the site's standards. They should develop a deck but tell no one of it until it is completed and T8s. Then they should post about it, but they shouldn't post too much. Then they should drive 9 hours to tournies because, hell, if you did it, then anyone should be able to.

Your'e right of course. But there are two instances which fall outside of these guidlines. First, when it is not a one-off. When the same person keep successes with the same deck, and returns to The Source arfter each fo these to explain their revisions and the reasoning behind them. Smelski again comes to mind. Caplan is another.

The other is when it is not a one-off, but a different deck piloted by the same person. To me, this gives an example of an even broader knowledge of the format. This again assumes that said deck and tournament were brought to discussion on this site.

Which leads us back to tounament success being a relatively small factor for Adepthood. In reference to the site - who cares if you win a tournament but are not active here.

Parcher

08-27-2008, 04:11 PM

I find it highly hypocritical that you are making all of these arguments personal. At no time did I reference myself or my standards in any of these posts. Only what I do think has become standard guidelines at The Source.

I only brought up post count in as far as it seems to be a yardstick to how Adepts are chosen. I never voiced an opinion either way, only that many have commented on a low post count being grounds for exclusion. My complaint was that this was a biased and unfair means, especially when it doesn't hold true for all.

Yes, Gearhart was promoted before any of the people I mentioned.

Anyone can "create" a deck. Creating a deck that is actually viable, and then putting that deck into action is another thing entirely. Anyone can spew hundreds of crappy ideas onto a forum. Some of them may even work. Combining them effectively for me has more relevance for success. Anyone can win a tournament. Going to your local shop and pwning n00bs in eight-mans every week for years will surely get your rating up. Beating three 1800+ players and two 1900+ players in the same tournament for me has more relevance for success.

And again, I don't hold anyone to my standards. Simply put though, all should be held to the same standard. For example, promoting someone who does not participate in tournament due to their complaint that they have none locally to attend I would consider biased. If they are actively involved in the Legacy community they will at some point find a way.

So is tournament success important or not? Your last post says no, but previously you suggest that it is in the Adept Promotion Guidelines.

Deep6er

08-27-2008, 04:22 PM

Oh, yeah. But that game was gay. Like you.

Whatever, still totally 5-0'd that tournament. So, in conclusion, SUCK IT.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 04:37 PM

I find it highly hypocritical that you are making all of these arguments personal. At no time did I reference myself or my standards in any of these posts. Only what I do think has become standard guidelines at The Source.

You mention what you think should be relevant for Adept standards. Why would I not assume that those were your standards?

I only brought up post count in as far as it seems to be a yardstick to how Adepts are chosen. I never voiced an opinion either way, only that many have commented on a low post count being grounds for exclusion. My complaint was that this was a biased and unfair means, especially when it doesn't hold true for all.

How can you voice an opinion and then say you have NOT voiced an opinion?

Anyway, the standards for Adepthood are clear - I think. Found here http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7455. Post count is not mentioned in them.

And again, I don't hold anyone to my standards. Simply put though, all should be held to the same standard. For example, promoting someone who does not participate in tournament due to their complaint that they have none locally to attend I would consider biased. If they are actively involved in the Legacy community they will at some point find a way.

So is tournament success important or not? Your last post says no, but previously you suggest that it is in the Adept Promotion Guidelines.

Which previous post do I suggest that? And once again, here are the Adept guidelines http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7455. The most relevant one to the above quote is probably #5

5. Ideally, though not necessarily required, some form of dedicated service to the format, which can include article writing, dedicated development of new decks, significant optimization of existing archetypes, or organizing/hosting Legacy tournaments in your area.

Citrus-God

08-27-2008, 05:27 PM

edit: Actually, a better example than Gadiel would be GerryT; GT has an account here and made a few posts in I think Goblins-related threads a couple years ago, and is also just actually a master. He could win every legacy tournament in New England for months and we wouldn't promote him unless he was also contributing to discussion.

You know, while in Minnesota, Gerry T. played lot's of Vial Goblins and earlier incarnations of UGR Mental Note Thresh way back when. I always see that man Top 8 Legacy events when looking through old MN Legacy Top 8s.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 06:29 PM

Can we split this thread in two?

Thread 1 - BUZZ thread - ie, going somewhere.
Thread 2 - Post Count/Relation of Adepthood to Post count, ie, not going anywhere, ever.

The Rack

08-27-2008, 06:34 PM

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 06:35 PM

Anyone can "create" a deck. Creating a deck that is actually viable, and then putting that deck into action is another thing entirely. Anyone can spew hundreds of crappy ideas onto a forum. Some of them may even work. Combining them effectively for me has more relevance for success. Anyone can win a tournament. Going to your local shop and pwning n00bs in eight-mans every week for years will surely get your rating up. Beating three 1800+ players and two 1900+ players in the same tournament for me has more relevance for success.

Well, some people aren't as blessed with having an extraordinarily difficult meta-game like Syracuse or the like. I just think if you're an active member, you keep it real, talk with respect, and post useful information, people will start to take you seriously.

Honestly, we're all your peers and what you do on here and in large tournaments speaks volumes to the kind of person and player you are.

And as for that whole moderator stepping aside thing: I think each and every one of them has done a great job keeping the site upwards and in check. You have to understand that they're trying to regulate a forum which is increasing in size with folks who aren't as sharp as they could be and just spew nonsense into forums people try to develop. Kudos to them for giving us a cool area to share ideas.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 06:47 PM

Questions:
How many teammates on Team EPIC are NOT Adepts?

Epic has 11 members registered here.
3 of them are Adepts.
1 is an Admin.
1 is a Mod.
6 are regular members.

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy. They have a whopping 8 Adepts in their membership.

What do you have to do to get a Team forum?

Have a team.

Despite how powerful I feel from this huge post count can you change it back to what it was?:tongue:

I don't remember what it was.

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 06:51 PM

Epic has 11 members registered here.
3 of them are Adepts.
1 is an Admin.
1 is a Mod.
6 are regular members.

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy. They have a whopping 8 Adepts in their membership.

Have a team.

I don't remember what it was.

Left Field has 7 members.

3 have 1800+ Ratings.
3 are regular members.
1 has a 1900+ Rating.
1 is a Mod.
0 are Adepts.

And we have pound for pound the oldest and arguably most successful team on the site.

Where's our love?

The Rack

08-27-2008, 06:56 PM

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy.
No conspiracy theory just curiosity.

Have a team.
A lot of people do, mine being the most successful San Diego team.

Are you just gonna ignore everything else I posted?

DeathwingZERO

08-27-2008, 07:02 PM

Post search shows The Rack @ 479 posts, as of his last one in this thread. Not quite sure how accurate that is though, thought he had more.

And I'd like to chime in a little bit on both the post count and the join dates. Seeing as I've been here since 2004, that puts 4 years under my belt of membership. Now, notice that my post count is roughly 1550, I did a little research on that.

I have under 400 posts in the Format Dev section. So under a quarter of my posts are actually doing any real relevance to the format, and some of those might not have even been relevant posts.

I have 500+ in both Mish Mash and Other Legacy discussion. A number of these from Other Discussion are going to be random trash talking, congrats on finishes, various tournament announcements from my old shop, etc. Again, not much relevance.

So to use myself as an example, does the fact that I have 1500 posts mean a thing to people? I've had discussions in Survival, Belcher, Ichorid, Aggro Loam, and a number of decks that no longer have open threads here, but for the most part, my posts are of a tournament player that likes to BS with like minded individuals.

So for those who actually use join date or post count as a relevant factor, take the extra step and maybe do some reading up on the people you consider worth looking into. I personally say that a majority of the Adept and Mod staff are very well versed with what's going on in Legacy in their areas, if not in general. I'd say the same for a portion of the regular members as well. If post count or join dates are a factor for you, maybe you should look into changing how you view people's opinions on here, rather than trying to use it as a defense to justify that either of them hold any merit. I'm the perfect example of them not.

Deep6er

08-27-2008, 07:03 PM

Left Field has 7 members.

3 have 1800+ Ratings.
3 are regular members.
1 has a 1900+ Rating.
1 is a Mod.
0 are Adepts.

And we have pound for pound the oldest and arguably most successful team on the site.

Where's our love?

Team David Gearhart has 1 member.

1 had a 1900+ rating
100% of the members are Adepts

Pound for pound, the player who has won an undisputed ass-ton with Solidarity (and soon It's the Fear).

Do you see how little this fucking matters?

We get it dude, nobody respects your team. But it would be great if we could hear less about your penis-size.

You're a great guy, and I think you're pretty cool, but this is quite literally the ONE thing I don't like about you. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop talking about how your team rocks but everyone else is too stupid to see it. Please.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-27-2008, 07:17 PM

It does reintroduce the fact that there's an inevitable and almost certainly correct suspicion of geographic bias, whether or not that's the best example of it supposedly rearing it's head. An actual vote on Adeptship would at least sprinkle the bias fairly evenly.

I think that Adeptship needs to be whittled down somehow. It seems obvious to me that as time goes on, with Adepts being added but rarely taken down, we're moving gradually from the position where being an Adept is seen as a nice, if mostly meaningless, privilege, to where lack of Adeptship after a certain period of time is seen as a snub or insult. It's becoming less elite and more an old boys' club.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 07:25 PM

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy. They have a whopping 8 Adepts in their membership.

It's also less of a team than "everybody who's in NoVa and a handful of people who aren't".

@Dave - Team Bikini is 100% Adept
100% Bikini
100% Not Jack Elgin

We ore teh winz.

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 07:29 PM

You're a great guy, and I think you're pretty cool, but this is quite literally the ONE thing I don't like about you. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop talking about how your team rocks but everyone else is too stupid to see it. Please.

See this is an unfortunate misnomer:

I have not one time...ONE TIME...ever just spouted randomly about how my team rocks (well, maybe a few times, but after doing well in big tournaments it would seem ok). If you look at these forums, you'll see a RETARDED amount of EPIC talk talk talk. One whisper about how I think any member of our team deserves an upgrade of status because of the things we've done and the things we do and we get this?

You're a cool guy too, bro, but seriously: You need to take a step back pause for a moment. Put yourself in my place. When you work as fucking hard as I did to try and 180 myself, do it, and ask for a little something more, you get pissed on like this. Everyone does respect our team, that quite literally has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with it, because that time is past. But we look at this is an opportunity to have an important say in things around here and we just see it as unfortunate.

Please get the "Mike Keller Pissy Syndrome" thoughts out of your head. I work extremely hard, spend a lot of money and time, and have every fucking right to want more for myself, my team, and the community.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 07:30 PM

Roten, this is for you, the whole post count thing was just mentioned as another way of distinguishing a person from another, I figured that if we did away with it it might be better. You obviously read a lot deeper into than that. And the whole making my post count high and yours really low is pretty cute but hasn't really proved anything. It is true that people will look through threads and only look at those with 1,000 plus posts and respond to those. You can believe me or not, but it's true.

Prove it.

You can go ahead and quote saying that the whole post count discussion is dead too because that'll make you look cool.
Looking cool is my primary concern. So here we go:

Post count issue = whining. And now it's pretty much a dead issue since since I really scoured the Admin page and finally figured out HOW to do it but Zilla is the only Admin with the ability/permssion to do it..
Changing the post count hasn't proven anything yet. It's only been a few hours. We probably have to give it a month or two to complete our little experiment.

Oh and not being recognized as much as an adept, that's not bullshit. Prove it. Prove that people ignore lesser post counts in an area that matters.* And, if so, prove that this is an important issue and is detrimental to the board. Also, what do you want to be recognized for and where have you been ignored? When has your opinion been obviously dismissed based solely on the basis of you being a regular member - which probably 96% of the site is? Do you really think that 96% of the site's membership is being ignored because about 3% has its name a different color?

Never in my post was I whining or giving a bad attitutde.
It came across that way.

*Is there anyone besides Bryant? And I contend that he is talking out of his ass - no offense Bryant but if what you said is true,
I actually don't bother reading most posts from people with low post counts. I'd just rather read people who are established as intelligent. It saves time and I believe someone with a post count of 2,000+ probably has a good idea of what they're talking about. Theres the occasional Cavius, but people know whos a giant ass.then you read posts from maybe 16 people on this site and put more stock in what LegoArmyMan says than Anwar or BigBear.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 07:35 PM

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 07:37 PM

Maybe it would placate people to actually know the individual reasons why individual members have or have not been promoted to adepts, so that they could stop using the phantom of elitism as an argument?

Or would that just make things worse?

When in doubt, complicate matters.

And sorry, I can't possibly divide this thead into the two separate issues. Feel free to c&p you original post and start a new thread.

DeathwingZERO

08-27-2008, 07:38 PM

Maybe it would placate people to actually know the individual reasons why individual members have or have not been promoted to adepts, so that they could stop using the phantom of elitism as an argument?

Or would that just make things worse?

Reasons why those who are adepts became adepts would be good, but reasons why anybody wasn't promoted would just continue to fuel this bitch fest going on.

EDIT: With more than say 20 seconds of thought into it, though...I'm beginning to reconsider. I'm not even sure showing why some became adepts is going to make a difference. Others who want to become adepts but cannot understand what they are failing at would see it as even more proof of elitism.

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 07:41 PM

There are a list of qualifications that would entitle some folks to be upgraded to Adept status. Even if you meet each requirement, there's no guarantee, which seems to be blatantly flawed because ultimately it's an "if I like this guy or not"-fest. It's like winning the Popular Vote and losing the Electoral College. Seriously.

SpatulaOfTheAges

08-27-2008, 07:41 PM

But how would the people complaining propose the issue be resolved?

I mean, doesn't it strike people that while some are complaining of regional bias, others, who play in the same metagame as the largest group of adepts, are complaining about being slighted?

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 07:46 PM

If someone wants to become an Adept, I think it should be by invite only. It's the selection process that seems to be unknown to most.

Deep6er

08-27-2008, 07:46 PM

See this is an unfortunate misnomer:

I have not one time...ONE TIME...ever talked about how my team rocks (maybe what, once?). If you look at these forums, you'll see a RETARDED amount of EPIC talk talk talk. One whisper about how I think any member of our team deserves an upgrade of status because of the things we've done and the things we do and we get this?

You're a cool guy too, bro, but seriously: You need to take a step back pause for a moment. Put yourself in my place. When you work as fucking hard as we do to try and 180 yourself, do it, and ask for a little something more, you get pissed on like this. Everyone does respect our team, that quite literally has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with it, because that time is past. But we look at this is an opportunity to have an important say in things around here and we just see it as unfortunate.

Please get the "Mike Keller Pissy Syndrome" thoughts out of your head. I work extremely hard and have every right to want more for myself, my team, and the community.

Dude, I've made it extraordinarily clear to most of the members on EPIC that I think they're trash-talking is fucking absurd and unnecessary.

It wasn't necessarily that I was going on about how often you've said "your team rocks" (which was paraphrasing anyway), but that you come off poorly when you do try to. After all, that was the point of that post that I quoted, right? You wouldn't point out accomplishments without wanting recognition for said accomplishments, right?

Although, I will admit, what do you mean "180 yourself"? That's confusing.

Also, I'm confused as to what you think the Adepts do around here? Or is it that you're proposing that one of you deserves Moderator status because of how well you do in tournaments? I'm a little unclear on the matter.

I was never accusing you of being "pissy", I just want this point to be made as it's my point of view.

@Matt: Damn straight. No Jack Elgin makes for a fucking great team. Also, Hellz YES!

@The Rack: Out of curiosity, you're on the same team as The Freak Accident, right? You play out in San Diego, right? It's unfortunate that you guys live across the country because I think it would be great to play against some of you, but I do have some questions.

1) You guys are awfully vehement about Adept status and who is qualified and who is not.

2) You seem awfully angry about what appears (to you) to be unfair discrimination. Is that correct?

3) What decks do you guys play out there? I'm just kind of curious because a while back, I perused some of the decks proposed by members of your team (or at least I believe they are on your team, if you could clarify who is and who is not that would make it easier for future questions), and found them to be playing rather poorly. Without sounding like a douchebag (seriously, I'm not trying to), why do you guys play decks like that? Is it a metagame thing? What?

4) I guess this would be more directed to The Freak Accident, but what event did you win (or place) that got you Pro Points? Do any of the other members of your team have Pro Points?

I'm not trying to be a dickhead about it, but I'm just genuinely curious, and I think others may be as well (hence why this isn't a PM). If you don't want to answer, you don't have to (obviously), although if you could tell me you're not answering (and a reason if you don't mind), then that could help the discussion move right along.

If we can find out why some members are so angry about various things, then maybe we (the Source as a whole) can fix them.

The Rack

08-27-2008, 07:47 PM

Prove it.

I don't have to. Let's say you are looking in the Ichorid thread. You have JoeSchmoe with ten posts on the source, joined a week ago, and you have IBA both posting in that thread. Joe has some oddball suggestion never been tested suggestion and it doesn't see the ligh of day. But if IBA(or any other Adept, IBA is just cooler) post that same thing 10 pages later they are suddenly revered as the Ichorid redesigner.

Can you honestly say that you look at JoeSchmoe's post with the same credibility as IBA's? WHy? because of his join date? Post count? Name Color?

Changing the post count hasn't proven anything yet. It's only been a few hours. We probably have to give it a month or two to complete our little experiment.

It won't prove anything because you're the administrator, yeah, real subtle.

The only way to test it is to have an Adept that knows his shit but has ben sorta forgotten, change his name, strip his color, and make him join today, with 5 posts. That would be how I test it.

*Is there anyone besides Bryant?
Frogboy's last post said he did.

EDIT I think I had 570 posts before I made my 10,000,000th post

DeathwingZERO

08-27-2008, 07:49 PM

I'm starting to side with both Nightmare and P_R about this whole conspiracy of not naming names. If there's people out there right now that the masses consider Adept worthy that aren't, start actually throwing the names out. At the very least there's recognition of what the masses are actually getting pissed at, and they can take each of those cases into consideration or at least give some insight as to why they don't believe the same. Constantly putting out the idea that there's people that belong yet not having the balls to back up said statements just makes people bitching on here sound like whiny emo kids.

And yes, I did say whine. Suck it up and deal with it, bitches.

Sanguine Voyeur

08-27-2008, 07:49 PM

It's the selection process that seems to be unknown to most.There's no reason for that to be true, it's spelled out in the the rules thread;

A discussion thread will be created in the Legacy Adept Lounge, which will be left open for a period of five (5) calendar days. On the fifth day, the thread will be closed, votes will be tallied and if the Legacy Adept candidate receives a majority vote, then he/she will be nominated to Legacy Adept. A 50/50 vote is not a majority vote. If the candidate fails to gain a majority vote, promotion at that time will be denied and the same candidate cannot be nominated for promotion for a period of not less than two (2) months after the poll close date.

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 07:51 PM

I think if someone has a fair, honest case for themselves and presents it in a professional way to the Adepts, then they be eligible for an upgrade of status.

Basically, the way it feels now, is that becoming an Adept is more of a "job acquisition" than a "title". Perhaps what we need are more Adepts. There are an absurd amount of decent players and interesting writers on this site and to not include them in more important things because of the "exclusivity" of this group seems unfair. People want to get involved. That's it.

EDIT: Sanguine, I searched for that and couldn't find it. Thank you.

Mad Zur

08-27-2008, 07:58 PM

I think the Adept system is flawed because it confuses two completely unrelated skill-sets: the ability to run a discussion board and the ability to win Legacy tournaments.

If the mods and admins feel that it's useful for them to have a small group of people with which to discuss important issues about the site and its community (such as the implementation of the ideas in this thread, or the details of the 5th anniversary tournament), that's great. I have no objection to that.

If they also want to recognize a group of people who are particularly good at Legacy, whose Magic-related posts are reasonable and well-informed -- well, I do have objections to that, but I'll get to them in a moment.

My main point is that those are two completely separate ideas. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to address them both with the same title. What do you do with someone who fits into one group but not the other? You can't assume that someone who has good ideas for the community is also a good player/deckbuilder/strategist, nor can you assume that a good player will be the right person to turn to for site issues.

But I would also argue that the second group should not exist at all. I don't think the existence of such a group does anything positive for the community, and after reading this thread, I feel that it does actually have negative effects. One would be the negative perception of it by some members, which is pretty apparent at this point. Another is this:

I know that when I started lurking this site (sometime in 2006) the "colour guide" was quite helpful in letting me figure out which of two well-spoken people was more likely to be talking out of his ass.

As stated, the simple color code should make things slightly easier on new members and draws attention to posts by people that are supposed to know what they are talking about.

I have limited time so, I do tend to look at an adept's posts more carefully.

I want to be able to see a different colored name, think 'this guy knows what he's talking about', and read that post carefully.
Not only do I disagree that this is a good thing about having Adepts, I think it's a very bad thing. We are actually encouraging people to be lazy (even just a little) and not read both sides of a discussion as carefully as they should. Adepts are wrong an awful lot of the time, and deciding whether or not to pay attention to someone based on someone else's judgment of them is a bad idea. I think we want to encourage people to think for themselves and pay attention to content. If an individual member makes an educated decision about who makes interesting posts and who doesn't, that's fine, but I don't think we should try to make those decisions for them.

But maybe good strategists really are right enough of the time that it's a good thing to encourage a slight bias towards the posts of the Adepts. However, I would argue that we can't rely on a group of Adepts to be that good. Adepts are ultimately chosen by the mod staff, and I'd like to again point out that there is no relationship between the ability to run a forum and the ability to succeed in Legacy. Several mods don't play much competitive Legacy. That doesn't hurt their ability to be mods at all, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that everyone with the ability to be a good mod is an authority on who is good at Legacy. A good mod shouldn't really have to be good at Legacy, but the Adept system runs into trouble if they aren't. I'm not trying to insult the mods, but the implied connection between being an authority on The Source and being an authority on who's good and who's bad has always seemed tenuous to me.

So to summarize, a small group which which the mods could discuss community issues sounds fine, but I don't like the elitism in our current system. I think it creates conflict and encourages lazy thinking.

Bryant Cook

08-27-2008, 08:00 PM

*Is there anyone besides Bryant? And I contend that he is talking out of his ass - no offense Bryant but if what you said is true, then you read posts from maybe 16 people on this site and put more stock in what LegoArmyMan says than Anwar or BigBear.

I wasn't being serious, I should've hinted at that more.

Also, Hollywood, not to get into it, but chill out dude. You've been knocking on EPIC quite a bit lately. We've done a lot to help you and your team.

@ Dave - Most of our shit talk isn't serious, you out of anyone should know this, you talk more about yourself more than anyone I know.

Deep6er

08-27-2008, 08:01 PM

Yeah, but I've stopped. I still know that it's a joke, but after a while it just kind of ran out. That's why I stopped, it's just not as funny anymore.

frogboy

08-27-2008, 08:03 PM

It is true that people will look through threads and only look at those with 1,000 plus posts and respond to those. You can believe me or not, but it's true.

Well, like, I'm a lot more interested in Bardo's opinion of something in Threshold or Vorosh than I am Joe Random.

Michael Keller

08-27-2008, 08:04 PM

I wasn't being serious, I should've hinted at that more.

Also, Hollywood, not to get into it, but chill out dude. You've been knocking on EPIC quite a bit lately. We've done a lot to help you and your team.

@ Dave - Most of our shit talk isn't serious, you out of anyone should know this, you talk more about yourself more than anyone I know.

Bryant, you know I love you. You bastard. We all hang out twice a week at C.Z. and play cards. And I have not been knocking on EPIC lately. If I have, please show me what I've said and I'll resolve the issue. But I honestly can't say that I have because I've been preoccupied the last month with NAVY things and haven't had any time to make fun of you, which I love :cool: (and will miss).

EDIT: @Dave: I went from a 1660 rating to an 1837 rating, in Syracuse no-less. I increased my post count by 1,000 posts in a matter of months - most of which I try to maintain as useful knowledge and insight. I aligned myself with a group of guys dedicated to winning. People called me a quitter, even Nightmare. But I stayed in. I've top 8'ed/4'ed at quite a few major Northeastern Legacy venues this calendar year, more than all other years I've played combined.

All I'm saying is that I sucked. Big time. Horribly. Terribly. Abysmally. And I took it to heart and changed my lifestyle and playing habits. And it has brought be to great heights. It just stings deep when people don't think you can change, you earn it, then don't get it. It's one of those things that isn't a big deal at all, but leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you know?

The point is this: If you start off bad, get totally better at your game and place high and change your posting habits, then don't become an Adept, then what open chance does this leave newer opportunists?

The Rack

08-27-2008, 08:20 PM

HammafistRoob

08-27-2008, 08:22 PM

OMG guys. This n00b Peter Rotten is a MODERATOR and he only has 38 posts!!!! That should give us all high hopes, right?
Fuck,,
Shut Up
I hate you all.
<3///

frogboy

08-27-2008, 08:37 PM

deep6er:
1) I'm not really that angry over the whole Adept thing I just want things to be fair for everyone. I may come off asbeing angry due to the fact that I've been arguing with PR but it is a discussion anyhow.
2) See 1) but in addition we aren't very angry because we've accepted it, it's just that it doesn't matter how many top 1s we get we aren't recognized as being good deckbuilders or a good team.
3) Some of the decks we make are truly horrible and just worst versions of other decks because we don't have all the right cards, however TFA the freakaccidnt, has gotten first in the past 3 tournies only to lose his streak to my reappearance there last week. We play Funkt decks, nuff said, feel free to PM if you are more interested.
4) I'm honestly not sure if we have any Pro points does PT Hollywood Legacy side event give points? If so I can check. Me and TFA went up there and I got 19th I think and he got 10th out of about 100? I don't really remember out of how many.

Oh and no offense taken, I know you're just being inquisitve and that's fine. Feel free to PM me whenever.

You only get pro points by playing in PTs or T32ing GPs.

If your strategy posts are worth reading, they get read. High post counts imply that your strat posts are worth reading; it usually means the person is pretty familiar with Legacy and has been battling for a while and I'm probably more inclined to try maverick ideas when someone who I know is decent suggested it. This is not to say that folks with lower post counts are ignored, but their posts are often not as useful.

Think about it; low post counts imply primarily lurking and asking a few questions. High post counts imply answering those questions. Answers are way more interesting to read.

(lots of exceptions, sure)

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 08:39 PM

I don't have to. Let's say you are looking in the Ichorid thread. You have JoeSchmoe with ten posts on the source, joined a week ago, and you have IBA both posting in that thread. Joe has some oddball suggestion never been tested suggestion and it doesn't see the ligh of day. But if IBA(or any other Adept, IBA is just cooler) post that same thing 10 pages later they are suddenly revered as the Ichorid redesigner.

This is a lazy and lame argument. You don't have to prove your points? To illustrate, let's use your logic for two other situations.

1. "Hi, honey. I'm breaking up with you because you're cheating on me. I can't and won't prove it, but I know."
2. There is a teacup floating in Earth's orbit. Can I prove it? Nope. But I know it's there.

And you've done it again. You made a claim that you can't support with proof.

Can you honestly say that you look at JoeSchmoe's post with the same credibility as IBA's? WHy? because of his join date? Post count? Name Color?

I guarantee JoeShmoe's post is judged by its content - just like I judge any IBA post I read.

The only way to test it is to have an Adept that knows his shit but has ben sorta forgotten, change his name, strip his color, and make him join today, with 5 posts. That would be how I test it.

Any Adept volunteers or any that you can recommend? PM me for the supersecret experiment. And who the Hell fixed you post count? I'll go change some random member's now to continue the experiment. :mad:

Tenant_Tron

08-27-2008, 09:03 PM

Nightmare

08-27-2008, 09:04 PM

So I pretty much hate this thread now, and by extention, this site. Just letting you guys know.

frogboy

08-27-2008, 09:08 PM

Finn

08-27-2008, 09:11 PM

Round and round.....
This topic grows tiring. Any chance you lock it just because?

Whit3 Ghost

08-27-2008, 09:12 PM

By the looks of things, TMD seems to be going through a change in their promotion methods. I rather liked their previous idea of a promotion exam as it makes thing a little more public. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do.

frogboy

08-27-2008, 09:13 PM

It's becoming unwieldy, but we generally don't lock threads like these as long as people are making legitimate posts as opposed to that FUCK THE MODS thread from a while ago.

Tenant_Tron

08-27-2008, 09:21 PM

Who?

My boy Bovinious from NoVa, from what he told me at least 3 of the Mods/Admins here really went out of their way to make it unpoleasant for him, and Bardo banned him for something that wasnt even an infraction by the rationalization Bardo gave. That's not really the point though, I was just making the point that there is bias involved in becoming an Adept and its not just related to post count, and I can see how that inherent bias could frustrate people.

T.T

Deep6er

08-27-2008, 09:24 PM

You LIKED that fucktard?

I'm not going to lie, much less respect for you now. I'm sorry, but that guy is a complete fuckwit.

Also, that assmunch totally deserved it. Besides being retarded, that pissing contest that he got into with Cavius OVER PITCH WORLD OF ALL THINGS, was an abomination that was completely, unnecessarily over the top. He'd been warned before.

It's just following the rules.

Also, I hate that guy. In case that wasn't obvious.

Peter_Rotten

08-27-2008, 09:26 PM

One of my teammates had over 1200 posts here before he got banned for no real reason a little while back, and I know most of his posts werent taken seriously and he would never have been promoted to Adept because of personal vendettas some of the Mods had against him, so I can see where there is bias in the system and how that may upset some people. Not sure if a change is really warranted, though.

Also, I agree with The Rack, even though you cant "prove" it (PR, repeating "prove it" over and over is really a copout arguement), people of course will read a long rant by Jack Elgin with several thousand posts and a different colored name over Joe Random's post, I mean ask around for Christ's sake...even I did that when I first joined the site and still am guilty of this to an extent.

T.T
And how the hell is asking someone to prove a claim considered a copout? Ok, ok, maybe when we're hunting for witches, communists, or terrorists suspicion is enough to convict, but generally speaking, if you make a claim you don't expect it to be taken seriously without proof.

Let me illustrate how ridiculous this is. Since we don't need to prove anything, you're Cavius. Admit it since it's obvious. How are you evading the IP ban? No matter, I'll go ban this account.

(Just kidding.) It's obvious that you are A Priest of Gix. Go back to your emo blog. Either way, you're evading a site ban and will be banned again.

(Just kidding) Also, since you took TheRack's side, you must be in a communistic terrorist coven hell-bent on dethroning the elite ruling class of the Source. Admit it or be site-banned.

But seriously. Are you Cavius or APOG?

But seriously, if you make a claim - especially one that may be disparaging, be able to defend and support it with proof.