Do you take Adepts' posts more seriously?

[Tenant_Tron]

PR claims we need "proof" for what is in my opinion a pretty obvious conclusion, so please answer the poll.

[Whit3 Ghost]

That was def not there when I posted.

EEEEEEDIT

[Tenant_Tron]

Yeah the poll is up now guys, it takes about 30 seconds to set it up after submitting a new thread.

[Whit3 Ghost]

I trust adepts in certain scenarios. I trust Bryant on the subject of TES and Dave on the subject of ITF and such. However, if an adept was trashing on Doomsday or Fetch Tendrils, I might be more inclined to take Emidln's word over theirs. I also happen to know most of the adepts personally so that might affect my bias more than them actually being adepts. As for the state of the format, because I know for a fact that adepts play in a ton of tournaments, I'd like to think that they have a handle on what's going on.

Edit- I also take the results of people who have done well in the format more seriously, adept or not.

[Nightmare]

I have difinitive proof that my opinion is not taken seriously:

People still play Dreadstill.

[Peter_Rotten]

People still play Dreadstill.

Holy shit! We have totally forgot about this. That deck is reviled by the Adepts. I think that I might be the only non-member to take it seriously! No, they really hate that deck.

I voted sometimes for essentially the reasons WhiteGhost cited. Which, I think, isn't really useful for the poll. It is essentially a qualified "no." Oops. My vote should have been a "no" but I'm not going to mess with it to try to preserve whatever intergrity this poll has.

[Tenant_Tron]

I included "sometimes" because in the other thread I heard a few express that sometimes if time is a concern or it is a certain deck/subject they listen to people in different ways. I dont think it really damages the poll unless it makes people unwilling to say "yes" or "no" out of indecisiveness, but whatever.

T.T

[Deep6er]

Generally, I don't care. I read everything. Nobody is on my ignore list. I weigh each as I read them.

However, as I read and analyze, there are people that I just do not trust. For example, I will never trust Landstill_101 about anything relating to It's the Fear. Actually, probably most Magic Theory/Strategy in general.

However, the same applies to Jack Elgin. I fucking hate that guy. I refuse to talk Magic Theory/Strategy with him and will pointedly ignore him when he tries.

The list goes on, but I always read and judge by the merits of the post. I don't give a damn if you just won a tournament with it, I will tell you that I still don't agree with cards in your deck.

For example, Tosh (who Top 2'd the Vancouver tournament) played a build of It's the Fear that I was vehemently against. I told him so. I did congratulate him on his success, but I let him know that there were cards in his deck that I didn't think were optimal (Wasteland comes to mind).

There. See. People do actually read the posts of members and take them seriously. People also ignore Adepts.

[Jaiminho]

I trust adepts in certain scenarios. I trust Bryant on the subject of TES and Dave on the subject of ITF and such. However, if an adept was trashing on Doomsday or Fetch Tendrils, I might be more inclined to take Emidln's word over theirs.

For each deck, there is a handful of people that can be truted on their words much more than the rest, but it doesn't mean that they aren't saying a bunch of crap on the rest of the threads. I usually will take Emidln's word over any adept on FT because barely only a few people give a crap about the deck.

Summarizing, I try to know who are the "authorities" of each decks I'm interested in.

[Getsickanddie]

This poll seems poorly constructed. For example, couldn't often and rarely be construed as being the same as sometimes? Every vote cast could be a sometimes vote.

[Nihil Credo]

Holy shit! We have totally forgot about this. That deck is reviled by the Adepts. I think that I might be the only non-member to take it seriously! No, they really hate that deck.

Count me for two. Which reminds me, I still have to post that Dreadstill apologia in the Q&A forum. It's been sitting half-written in a .txt file on my desktop for days now, the forum will probably get abolished before I finish it.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

However, the same applies to Jack Elgin. I fucking hate that guy. I refuse to talk Magic Theory/Strategy with him and will pointedly ignore him when he tries.

My good friend David here raises a very excellent point with his ironically sardonic comment. Some people, such as myself, are simply worth listening to more than others, not because we're Adepts, but because of the qualities that led to us being selected as Adepts. This doesn't prove anything about the Adept system one way or another; no matter how flawed the selection process, if there's even a nominal effort to select the best posters/strategists, a random Adept should be more worthwhile to listen to than a random regular user.

It's confusing cause and effect. Like, the great city of Boston and the cream pie for which it's named.

[raharu]

lolJack.

I voted sometimes because, well, it's a matter of who's speaking. If an adept is in a thread I'll generally be more inclined to listen to their advice, but there are other users that I'll immediately be more inclined to listen to (DIF, Adan, Volt, monkey, Whit3 Ghost, edlmin in regards to combo, Isamaru, etc.), even over a number of the adepts. It's simply a matter of who is talking, but again, if you were to grab a random user and an Adept at random, I would prolly listen to the Adept over the normal user. To me, being an Adept is an indicator of general brightness in the area of Magic Theory, but having that status doesn't really mean it's true, it's just more likely. Indicators do occasionally fail.

[Deep6er]

My good friend David here raises a very excellent point with his ironically sardonic comment. Some people, such as myself, are simply worth listening to more than others, not because we're Adepts, but because of the qualities that led to us being selected as Adepts. This doesn't prove anything about the Adept system one way or another; no matter how flawed the selection process, if there's even a nominal effort to select the best posters/strategists, a random Adept should be more worthwhile to listen to than a random regular user.

It's confusing cause and effect. Like, the great city of Boston and the cream pie for which it's named.

Have you died yet? That resurrection cookie is close to getting stale. You don't want stale resurrection cookies. So, hurry it up before it's stale. Seriously, get with the dying.

[Wallace]

I don't see how this is going to prove anything?

[Pinder]

Nope. I read every post in every thread, for the most part. And when I'm skimming, I skim everything, not just regular members.

I mostly pay more attention to the well-known posters on the site, be they Adept or not, because they've demonstrated a habit of consistently good posts. Some (but not necessarily an exhaustive list of) members which are not Adepts, but whom I generally pay attention to:


Ebinsugewa
emidln
scrumdogg (maybe because he still owes me a beer, though)
Volt
AngryTroll
Whit3_Ghost
A Legend
etc., etc., you get the idea.

[Deep6er]

HEY! WHAT THE HELL!

I should totally be on that list.


Also, EBINSUGEWA!!!

That name is so fucking awesome.

EDIT: Oh, I get it, those are NON - Adepts you listen to. Fair enough. Still not retracting my statement. I should be on that list regardless. :)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

HEY! WHAT THE HELL!

I should totally be on that list.


Also, EBINSUGEWA!!!

That name is so fucking awesome.

EDIT: Oh, I get it, those are NON - Adepts you listen to. Fair enough. Still not retracting my statement. I should be on that list regardless. :)


Some (but not necessarily an exhaustive list of) members which are not Adepts, but whom I generally pay attention to:


Chillax, friend-David.

Also, I'm on a diet. But I'm told that baking cookies and other pastries is a sign of deep and binding friendship for those you love. Thank you, friend!

Although that should be whom are not Adepts, as it's not the list's status as a Legacy Adept or not that is in question.

[Deep6er]

... God. I fucking hate you. How about this, you die and then I'll laugh and point at you. Then, I'll find some necrophiliac to sodomize you when you're dead. How about that? Goddamn it. I fucking hate you so goddamn much.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'm not sure if follow the point of your sadonicism, good chum.

[n00bas4urus_r3x]

If I take the time to play a deck, I'm going to read the entire thread for a better understanding of the deck, and to try to reach a valid conclusion about the deck and why it is where is is now. Obviously, throughout any given thread, certain posters have significantly better ideas than others, either through testing or just sound knowledge of the game, so I judge their input higher.

[Peter_Rotten]

@IBA and Deep6er - Stop ruining Bovinious' poll.

[Anusien]

Some Adepts are more well-respected than others. Generally I put users into a few classes; the ones whose names/avatars I recognize and respect, people who I recognize and don't trust, people I don't recognize, and people with low post counts and/or no avatars (seriously, the easiest way to fall into the dross is have an uninspiring or duplicate avatar!). I read most posts on threads I care about, and if it's a dispute between two or more people, I generally categorize them in that category. So I'll listen to adepts more than people I'm not familiar with because they're less likely to be batshit crazy, but I'll listen to other people more. In other words, Adept is like starting out ahead; you can still lose but at least you tried.

[Ewokslayer]

the ones whose names/avatars I recognize and respect.
I do a similar thing. And I do it in reverse as well.
If you make consistently crappy posts I will ignore you. If you make consistently good points I will pay attention. If you are new I will determine whether you are intelligent or not based on what you say and how you say it.

Oh and if your Avatar is of Anwar in the pool I will totally think that Anwar just posted something for about 3 seconds before I realize that it is Price with that stupid picture.

[Whit3 Ghost]

Oh and if your Avatar is of Anwar in the pool I will totally think that Anwar just posted something for about 3 seconds before I realize that it is Price with that stupid picture.
Same.

[emidln]

I read pretty much everything regardless of who wrote it. As far as taking things seriously, the only people I really trust in that regard are people that I've talked to quite a bit. Like, I'm sure Deep6er knows his shit, but his posts don't tend to stand out in my mind because I don't regularly talk to him. However, when goobafish, whit3_ghost, or Nihil (just to name a few) post, I often IM them directly and talk about the post more in depth. Often, I'll even IM them when I make a post and ask their opinion on it too (ask anyone on my buddy list just how annoying this is).

[herbig]

I more or less only read my own posts, so I guess I vote yes.

[DeathwingZERO]

Man, this might as well be "The Newly Improved Great Source Quotes Thread", because it's full of win. I mean REAL win.

I'm not really in the mood to vote for any of these things, but frankly it comes down to "no". I will take into consideration those who built a deck, those who made rogue style changes to a deck, or those who constantly win with a deck, as far as strategy goes.

In the case of everything else, all I really care about is that nobody else drones nearly as much as I do. I mean seriously, I always feel the need to write a goddamn essay to make sure my point gets across well enough here.

[Atwa]

No, I never do that.

I take certain persons more seriously with others, because they have already build a reputation on certain area's.

When I see IBA post on a non blue control deck, I'll know he knows what he is talking about (most of the times), same goes for Byrant with TES, Bardo with Threshold, and the list goes on. You'll notice that most of these people are adepts.

I don't accept their word because they are adepts, I accept their opinions because these people have proven in the past they know what they are talking about. These people have been promoted mostly because they actuallt do know what they are talking about.

However, I am smart enough to recognize bullshit or a good argumentation. Sometimes the adepts are wrong about a topic, which is only human. When Isee bullshit, I call bullshit.

For me being an adept doesn't add anything for me. Most people I have respect for, I alreasy had it before they became adepts. I have also respect for some people who haven't become an adept yet, and maybe they never will. That doesn't give them less credit.

[scrumdogg]

Nope. I read every post in every thread, for the most part. And when I'm skimming, I skim everything, not just regular members.

I mostly pay more attention to the well-known posters on the site, be they Adept or not, because they've demonstrated a habit of consistently good posts. Some (but not necessarily an exhaustive list of) members which are not Adepts, but whom I generally pay attention to:

Ebinsugewa
emidln
scrumdogg (maybe because he still owes me a beer, though)
Volt
AngryTroll
Whit3_Ghost
A Legend
etc., etc., you get the idea.

Thank you, I try to be productive in the threads in which I post. I used to be an Adept but was overcome by the rampaging Downs Syndrome flooding through the site. Ala Michael Douglas (Falling Down) I then wielded my verbal shotgun on the microcephalic Nazi pawn shop owners defiling my format & these boards (and continue to do so). I was demoted (quite rightly) but I would rather be an Edinger and confront the idiots than have to overcome their mental sewage with positive acts of verbal piety and constant prayer. I believe we all read (or skim) the posts equally, but that doesn't answer the question. I do value some opinions more than others, but that isn't determined by Adept status, post count or amount of spammi...posting in a particular thread. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of this not being the case, with entire threads being diverted, derailed or even hijacked.

On an unrelated note, welcome back Bovinious...is it killing you not to mention Tarmogoyf yet?

[Wallace]

I totally skim threads, just like most people do, whether they admit it or not. Like a lot of other people have posted I also hold certain members opinion's and idea's higher than other's. This has nothing to do with post count or the color of there name. I just think it's funny that this site is a place for the Legacy community to hang out and discuss he format and all that's been posted over the last 36 hours is whining and Bitching.

I mean I have a high post count, I place well in most of the events I play in, I primarily post in non-MM threads, hell I even donated a small amount of prizes to the 5 year event, do I complain about not getting invited to be an adept? No because when it really comes down to it, WHO CARES? Oh no's I have a light blue name, I can post in the adept lounge, I must be better than everyone who doesn't have a light blue name... Give me a break, this is a web site for a stupid game that most people don't even know exists, if your gonna whine about something go to a political web site and talk about who should be the next president and stop worrying about whether or no people read/care about your posts...


On an unrelated note, welcome back Bovinious...is it killing you not to mention Tarmogoyf yet?

You beat me to it!!!

[Zilla]

Although that should be whom are not Adepts, as it's not the list's status as a Legacy Adept or not that is in question.
It should actually be who are not Adepts. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least do it correctly.

[WiLdFiRe]

I look at who is posting, and take it seriously based on that rather than the colour of their name.
EDIT: I should probably finish the thread before posting - basically what Anusien said

[Bardo]

I couldn't give a shit what color anyone's name is in at this point -- if I think you have a good idea or can make a good argument, I'll listen. If I think you're full of shit, I'll just skim over you.

But all of the Adepts were regular posters at one point or another, and enough people took the time to notice them, or appreciate their posts/ideas, to either nominate and/or vote for them, so, you know, you can't take it too seriously. There are excellent regular posters and there are some pretty dim adept posters (no, not you Corrupted Angel), so no, I don't take Adepts posts more seriously than anyone else's.

[frogboy]

I couldn't give a shit what color anyone's name is in at this point -- if I think you have a good idea or can make a good argument, I'll listen. If I think you're full of shit, I'll just skim over you.

this.

[Citrus-God]

I couldn't give a shit what color anyone's name is in at this point -- if I think you have a good idea or can make a good argument, I'll listen. If I think you're full of shit, I'll just skim over you.

Seconded.

[Slag]

I read things on the internet the same way I drive: by assuming everyone else is a complete moron, and I have to double check everything for them.

[Brehn]

No. I try to figure out who has a clue about a topic and value those persons' opinion more highly. Often those include adepts, but every once in a while adepts fail this test horribly.

[caiomarcos]

I take Adept's posts more seriuosly only in the Adept Q&A's topic. :D

[emidln]

I take Adept's posts more seriuosly only in the Adept Q&A's topic. :D

Funny, when I started reading them I began taking most of the adepts less seriously.

[Sims]

It should actually be who are not Adepts. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, at least do it correctly.

Holy shit, Zilla got dragged out of the real world and back onto the source?!

/insert high pitched japanese female scream while Tokyo gets destroyed all around us.


Oh... right, the poll. On a completely random level I might take an adept's post more seriously, but generally I have a list of people whose posts I read because I think they have a pretty solid idea of a particular deck or archtype. Some others I read for the lulz. There are a certain list of members that I choose not to read, but don't have them on ignore because thanks to people quoting bad posts all the time I'd be forced to see it anyways. Thanks, guys.

[Finn]

Does anyone else think it is awesome that zilla crawled out from under his rock to correct Jack's grammar and then crawled back under?

I read everything in topics that pique my interest. How else can I create opionions of whom I take seriously?

EDIT: Damn you Corrupted Angel and your being-firstedness. Damn you!!!

[Peter_Rotten]

I think that one reason our board has survived for five years is because ideas are judged on their own merit (I at least think they are). And here is PSA:

Judge ideas.
Judge them well.
Weigh their merits and their faults.
Make your own conclusions about them.
Support your conclusions with some sort of evidence.

Are people really doing something else here?

[Tenant_Tron]

I think that one reason our board has survived for five years is because ideas are judged on their own merit (I at least think they are).

At least 63% (a MAJORITY) of the board disagree with you some of the time, and 30% disagree with you often (at the time of my writing), that people are NOT judged by their own merit, but to an extent by the color of their name. This is exactly what you wanted proof of, it was shown in this poll, and apparently you cant even be bothered to read the results and draw an obvious conclusion. I know you are not that incompetent in graph-reading and/or logic, so I dont know what the issue could be here...

T.T

[Michael Keller]

The poll is obviously a point of reference, but let's be honest here: The results are certainly skewed by the simple inactivity of voting by the majority of members on this site. There are thousands of folks who could vote, but haven't.

And it's rather close, even so.

[Atwa]

At least 63% (a MAJORITY) of the board disagree with you some of the time, and 30% disagree with you often (at the time of my writing), that people are NOT judged by their own merit, but to an extent by the color of their name. This is exactly what you wanted proof of, it was shown in this poll, and apparently you cant even be bothered to read the results and draw an obvious conclusion. I know you are not that incompetent in graph-reading and/or logic, so I dont know what the issue could be here...

T.T

Your logic is flawed.

Most of the people who voted sometimes explained that was because they pay attention to certain people who happen to be adepts. I think you can put 60% of the sometimes bracket into the no camp, which was explained in the posts they made.

[Tenant_Tron]

The poll is obviously a point of reference, but let's be honest here: The results are certainly skewed by the simple inactivity of voting by the majority of members on this site.

Actually, not really, over 100 people voted, and if you have ever taken a course in even basic statistics you would know that any sample size greater than n=30 is actually very reliable for drawing conclusions in this sort of affair. Its probably better to have the more active people voting in the poll anyways because those are likely the people who read and contribute more often. I dont understand why people are trying to denounce the poll just because the results dont agree with their preconceived notions.

T.T

[Michael Keller]

Actually, not really, over 100 people voted, and if you have ever taken a course in even basic statistics you would know that any sample size greater than n=30 is actually very reliable for drawing conclusions in this sort of affair. Its probably better to have the more active people voting in the poll anyways because those are likely the people who read and contribute more often. I dont understand why people are trying to denounce the poll just because the results dont agree with their preconceived notions.

T.T

I have taken plenty of courses in basic statistics and what you're doing is sampling a population of users, asking them to vote, and ending up with a result which is too close to gauge a preference.

Let's be honest here: If the results were more resounding, then perhaps people would see fit to agree. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

The "Sometimes" category should have been eliminated to get a more definitive answer to the issue. Tacking those lost votes on to either or paints a little clearer picture.

[Atwa]

I dont understand why people are trying to denounce the poll just because the results dont agree with their preconceived notions.

T.T
Don't you do the same? Putting "sometimes" as an option was a very bad move, since it can be explained in different ways. If you had actually read the posts made instead of just taking the number in a badly made poll, I think your results would have been a lot more clear. Now results can be interpeted in both ways.

[Jak]

I am starting to feel that the only ones still complaining about adepts are people that can't stand not being put on a throne for their MtG skills. If I am about to post in a thread, I read everyone's posts. Even if someone is just plain stupid, like Radley, I would still read his posts. Well, for laughs but I didn't ignore him.

I like the idea of adepts. I think there should be some people on the list and some people off, but 95% of the adepts are active and know the format well. Some people have some bad feelings about adepts which I think is more about disagreements or the fact that no one acknowledges them as one of "the best" legacy players". If you want recognition I wouldn't be out searching for it. Let it come to you. If you are one of the best Legacy players and know your stuff, then post well.

If you feel your posts aren't getting read, maybe it is people not responding to your poor post. Some people don't want to read something that is poorly written. Others don't want to respond to a suggestion of Life from the Loam in Goblins. Maybe it is your fault people don't read or respond to your posts.

[Tenant_Tron]

Your logic is flawed.

Most of the people who voted sometimes explained that was because they pay attention to certain people who happen to be adepts. I think you can put 60% of the sometimes bracket into the no camp, which was explained in the posts they made.

You do realize that paying more attention to an Adept is the same as paying less attention to a non-Adept, right? Attention is a relative thing.


I have taken plenty of courses in basic statistics and what you're doing is sampling a population of users, asking them to vote, and ending up with a result which is too close to gauge a preference.

Let's be honest here: If the results were more resounding, then perhaps people would see fit to agree. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Yeah Ill give you that, the result werent really too resounding, but at the very least the 30% who said yes shows that there is some (I would argue) significant existence of this mindset out there, which some people were denying even existed at all.

T.T

[thefreakaccident]

There are like three people who I actually respect on these boards, as most people just have no fucking clue what they are talking about...


It is odd, as I perform fantastically IRL, but I suck at arguing, so I guess I can find it safe to assume that you guys simply skim me for the most part.


The people I respect at this point:

emedlin for combo in general

DIF primarily for control in general, landstill and threshold mainly

And the few specialized experts for their own respective decks.

(a good example is Wasted life, although I hate his deck, I expect him to know what he is talking about regarding his deck).


I just feel bad having to skip over so much useless crap most of the time just to find the few gems in a thread, it eats up a lot of time.

[frogboy]

My basics statistics class taught me about self-selection bias and how the central limit theorem doesn't really apply when a survey choice is so vague as "sometimes" because IID becomes tricky and I'm not really convinced this is going to be normally distributed anyway, but hey, whatever.

Did it ever occur to you that because generally Adepts are more, well, adept at playing, discussing, and thinking about Legacy that, perhaps, their opinions might carry more weight with more people?


that people are NOT judged by their own merit, but to an extent by the color of their name.

People are being judged on their merit. The adepts. The guy with twenty posts? Judged on lack of merit, unless his ideas are coherent and reasonable.

[Michael Keller]

All this thread really has done is open Pandora's Box. That's really all. I think cooler heads have prevailed, and that there is action being taken on the matter.

Not necessarily because a select group of people think so, but because the Adepts and Moderators are taking their jobs seriously.

[frogboy]

You do realize that paying more attention to an Adept is the same as paying less attention to a non-Adept, right? Attention is a relative thing.

I still don't really see a problem with this. People are biased towards the opinions of those who are considered to be good at Magic! Say it isn't so!

[Michael Keller]

I still don't really see a problem with this. People are biased towards the opinions of those who are considered to be good at Magic! Say it isn't so!

And thus the circle-jerk commences.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Tenant Tron, would you like to sign a petition to get Congress to subsidize the lagging piracy industry, and thus save the World from global warming? I think you're kind of missing the intentional correlation between poster quality and selection for Adepthood, and so you're shooting your own argument in the foot where otherwise you might be able to convince people that the title-colors have an unhealthy anchoring effect that distorts relative value. But in greedily striving to pretend that there's not clear and generally agreed upon difference in actual quality between the average user and the average adept, you're losing all credibility. And the first rule of persuasion is to always maintain credibility.

[Peter_Rotten]

At least 63% (a MAJORITY) of the board disagree with you some of the time, and 30% disagree with you often (at the time of my writing), that people are NOT judged by their own merit, but to an extent by the color of their name. This is exactly what you wanted proof of, it was shown in this poll...

No, you fail to understand your own poll. I'll clear it up for you. Your poll (which you started, so one would hope you would understand what you're polling) asks, "Do you take Adepts' posts more seriously than post of "normal" members?" (direct quote - don't blame the typos on me).

Nowhere in your poll does it ask about ideas, how people judge them, or the merit of them. Once again, your poll asks a very specific question.

Also, please review the posts in this thread. Most of them explain why the member voted No or Sometimes. However, not many members who voted Yes have explained their reasoning. I don't know why.

And, BTW, Sometimes was a terribad option. That really messes with the answer.

This is like you created a poll asking "Has Democracy Failed? Yes, No, Maybe?" Then having roughly 60percent of those polled answer Yes or Maybe, and you state that clearly Communism is a better system as indicated by your poll. You're making too many assumptions - especially in favor of the conclusions that you want.

Read your results as they are and don't impregnate them with what you want them to say.


...and apparently you cant even be bothered to read the results and draw an obvious conclusion. I know you are not that incompetent in graph-reading and/or logic, so I dont know what the issue could be here...

Hmmm... I have read the results AND the posts. I hope that you have also. And how do you know anything about my competence in graph-reading and/or logic? I may be very poorly versed in graph-reading and/or logic or I may be a graph-reader and/or logic-er of Artisan level.

[Atwa]

Tenant Tron, would you like to sign a petition to get Congress to subsidize the lagging piracy industry, and thus save the World from global warming? I think you're kind of missing the intentional correlation between poster quality and selection for Adepthood, and so you're shooting your own argument in the foot where otherwise you might be able to convince people that the title-colors have an unhealthy anchoring effect that distorts relative value. But in greedily striving to pretend that there's not clear and generally agreed upon difference in actual quality between the average user and the average adept, you're losing all credibility. And the first rule of persuasion is to always maintain credibility.

Amen to that. hat was the point I was trying to make, but couldn't because my lack of fully understanding the enligh language and writing skills in general.

Look, I know I won't make it to adept anytime soon, I write badly and I have way too less actual experience. However, I have been on these boards for 3.5 years now, and I know who knows what he is talking about and who not.

Other have also recognised these people and made them adept. Is it really that strange that people who have been on these boards as long as I do think there is (almost) nothing wrong with the adept system? (Except those who feel neglected because they weren't elected.)

People aren't paying attention to adepts because they are adepts, they pay attention to the adepts because they are people who know what they are talking about.

[frogboy]

And thus the circle-jerk commences.

There's plenty of members who I read, too, but I'm mostly just addressing his crusade.

[Michael Keller]

There's plenty of members who I read, too, but I'm mostly just addressing his crusade.

Oh I know I'm agreeing with you frog. I'm just saying that's how it works.

[Tenant_Tron]

@IBA: Im not denying there is a quality difference between the average post of an Adept and the average post of a non-Adept, I actually agree with this and said myself that I too am guilty of taking Adept posts more seriously. I was just trying to contest opinion that "all posts are considered equally for individual merit" that was being championed by several people in the other thread, because I do believe people take Adept posts more seriously, whether this is good, bad, or a combination Im not sure.

@PR: Yeah, in hindsight putting "sometimes" was an awful idea. Im still surprised and think it is significant that 30% of people said "yes", but you are right the poll could have been a lot more meaningful.

T.T

[Anusien]

Actually, not really, over 100 people voted, and if you have ever taken a course in even basic statistics you would know that any sample size greater than n=30 is actually very reliable for drawing conclusions in this sort of affair.
What an over-simplification! I don't think polling less than 2% of the people represents a valid sample size. 108 people voted. (Only 71 voted Yes or No). The Source has 4,127 members at current count, and 976 active members. In fact, if we combine Sometimes with Yes (70, 65%), the margin of error between "Sometimes Yes" and "No" is nearly 20%. And in fact at 95% confidence level it's virtually impossible to say anything with the data.

If you want the poll to mean anything it basically has to stand on its own as some sort of oddity. But as others have pointed out, it's not clear why the adepts get more love if they do; is it because they seem more knowledgeable or because they've got the extra color. The real test would be to take a deck nobody is experienced with and have the adepts and non-adepts argue on even footing.

Or we could just argue in circles for days and never get anywhere.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I judge posts individually and by their content, not by the name of the person who posts. Posts that are polite and show sound reasoning, valid argumentation, and due consideration receive more weight in my eyes than their counterparts. I have seen "adepts" all over The Source who, at one time or another, have failed to meet these standards and have instead attempted to use their reputation to close a discussion that could have otherwise proven fruitful. So, clearly, they are not immune to our human failings.

My point is that we all fall prey to these same failings, regardless of experience. A person with hundreds of games behind him or her with a certain deck will, I believe, show that experience in the quality of his or her posts, irrespective of what a given forum decides to give him for an E-penis. I disregard all posts that do not demonstrate this sort of quality, regardless of who has made them: it could be the Hatfields talking about Threshold for all I care. There are a great many people here who are better players than I am, but if they cannot formulate cogent and insightful posts, then there is no reason to heed their advice. Give me real reasons to splash white for Swords to Plowshares, not the dogmatic drivel that is "StP is the best removal in the gamezorz!!11". Show me the angles that you have considered, the aspects of a deck's functioning that it complements.


In sum: "Adept" status is meaningless as it stands so far as I'm concerned, and I ignore it accordingly. I only wish everyone else would, too.

[Nightmare]

I don't really read any posts unless I see the word Nightmare in it somewhere.

[bigbear102]

I voted yes. Like everybody has been saying, Adepts are usually promoted for a reason. Sure, I read posts and make opinions, and sometimes agree with the regular members over adepts. Hell, I am a member and have gotten into several arguments with Adepts. If I only looked at the color then I would immediately concede the argument due to the fact that I am not an Adept and they are, therefore my posts are meaningless.

Most of the time I will err on the side of the Adept. That happens in areas of the game/decks that I am not fully confident in my own opinions. Most of the time I am though.

I answered yes because in probably the 10% of the time that I pay attention to status, it is precisely to decide who is likely to be correct.

And this thread is hilarious. I love when the term 'circle jerk' is brought up. I always laugh.

[Hoojo]

I may have misunderstood the question. I will often read Adept posts because I can count on them being well written and very level-headed, though I may not take them seriously or agree with them. Its nice to be able to see all sides of an argument JUST reading Adept posts because they are well written even if you don't agree with the opinion.

[mujadaddy]

Although that should be whom are not Adepts, as it's not the list's status as a Legacy Adept or not that is in question.
Uh, no. It's who, not whom.

E.g., "They, who are Adepts" vs. "They, for whom Adept status applies"

Nub.

Oh, apparently, Zilla tread this ground already. Hopefully the examples are helpful, though. Carry on.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Shut it.

Anyway, as long as we're trying to make P_R do a lot of work, let's have a minor solution. I never notice non-bright colors in screennames myself, but I can see where they might be considered to have an unhealthy anchoring effect; i.e., whereas when someone random makes a truly terrible and uninformed statement, when it's an adept, people treat it as either true or partially true. In general, it might give arguments greater weight than they deserve.

On the other hand, too many people find being able to sort out who they like reading useful, although all admit that the system is imperfect as they also like to read several regular members posts actively.

Now, just to give PR something to do, is it possible to alter the system so that you can make your own "favorite posters" list, people who will show up in a special color just for you? This could either replace or superecede the current color coding system, but it seems like a worthwhile idea if it were feasible.

[Nihil Credo]

Now, just to give PR something to do, is it possible to alter the system so that you can make your own "favorite posters" list, people who will show up in a special color just for you? This could either replace or superecede the current color coding system, but it seems like a worthwhile idea if it were feasible.

This sounds like something a GreaseMonkey script could do easily. Where's Pinder when we need him?

[Peter_Rotten]

http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/what_is_buddylist

Maybe the closest thing to IBA's suggestion. But it would be pretty sweet to do be able to do what you're talking about.

[dahcmai]

You know what's amusing. I never bothered to notice the color of people's names. Well, Ok, I noticed Peter Rotten's a few times since he does seem to earn that nick he has by locking rediculous threads here and there. : )

Anyway, I really do read most of the posts, though I will start skipping down if the person rambles, obviously isn't making a lick of sense, or is arguing a point that they really shouldn't be.

If you're making sense, I read it. If you're explaining your point of veiw, I'll usually read that. I'm just here to get some ideas, see why some people are doing well with certain decks or certain card picks, and see people's outlook on the Legacty format in general. If you're not writing things along those lines, yeah, I ignored yah.

I honestly never bothered to notice if it was an adept or not.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/what_is_buddylist

Maybe the closest thing to IBA's suggestion. But it would be pretty sweet to do be able to do what you're talking about.


Right. Get cracking.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Don't we already have buddy list functions?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Yeah, but the function of this list would be to enable you to skim right towards the posts you're most likely, based on your own input, to be interested in.

[Pinder]

This sounds like something a GreaseMonkey script could do easily. Where's Pinder when we need him?

I altered like 2 lines of someone else's Greasemonkey script. I'm not that good. Yet. I suppose if I set my mind to it I could figure out how.

But the thing Rotten pointed out it probably easier on all parties.

[thefreakaccident]

There are like three people who I actually respect on these boards, as most people just have no fucking clue what they are talking about...


It is odd, as I perform fantastically IRL, but I suck at arguing, so I guess I can find it safe to assume that you guys simply skim me for the most part.


The people I respect at this point:

emedlin for combo in general

DIF primarily for control in general, landstill and threshold mainly

And the few specialized experts for their own respective decks.

(a good example is Wasted life, although I hate his deck, I expect him to know what he is talking about regarding his deck).


I just feel bad having to skip over so much useless crap most of the time just to find the few gems in a thread, it eats up a lot of time.

[I'm a TROLL]

Save me the time to figure it out myself:

1) Which answer will piss of the mods the most (so I can vote it)?
2) What do the colors mean in names?

[Peter_Rotten]

Save me the time to figure it out myself:

1) Which answer will piss of the mods the most (so I can vote it)?
2) What do the colors mean in names?

Go with your first choice. Your time here seems limited, so feel free to voice your opinion now.

[thefreakaccident]

I know this thread is about getting attention, but sometimes you shouldn't try and get the bad kind of attention from the king of lockjobs :eek: .

[DeathwingZERO]

I know this thread is about getting attention, but sometimes you shouldn't try and get the bad kind of attention from the king of lockjobs :eek: .

Or do, and save us all the torment of having to remember to read past the posts by a TROLL.

[Jak]

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

There are like three people who I actually respect on these boards, as most people just have no fucking clue what they are talking about...


It is odd, as I perform fantastically IRL, but I suck at arguing, so I guess I can find it safe to assume that you guys simply skim me for the most part.


The people I respect at this point:

emedlin for combo in general

DIF primarily for control in general, landstill and threshold mainly

And the few specialized experts for their own respective decks.

(a good example is Wasted life, although I hate his deck, I expect him to know what he is talking about regarding his deck).


I just feel bad having to skip over so much useless crap most of the time just to find the few gems in a thread, it eats up a lot of time.

Wow. First off, how do you know people don't read your posts? I am getting kind of annoyed by you. Are you this emo in real life? Do you think people don't read your posts because they don't reply to them? Maybe, it's because your posts are poor.


Maybe it's because you do this



too much.



I don't know.


You said you skip over posts yourself so why are you complaining. If you admit your posts are crap and that you skip over crap yourself, why then are you asking why people don't read your posts?

I think people really need to look in a mirror and realize that there is a reason people don't respond to their posts.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

I pay attention to certain people's posts more then others, but those people keep turning into adepts.

[HammafistRoob]

TARMOGOYF

:smile:

[Adan]

I don't take adept's posts more seriously than others, especially because Clemens and I are dissing each other infinite times via IM because we both have different approaches in several things.

That's why I'm always taking a look at those different approaches and then I can balance those perspectives. Even adepts are sometimes wrong or simply have an other opinion.

And well, for the remaining users, there's just 1 single user whose posts I don't read anymore.

[Mister Agent]

I certainly turn to Jander and/or Der Imaginure Fruend for deck advice on control archetypes(e.g. landstill or general blue control). Considering both of them prove their points in heavy playtesting and also have a good amount of success with control in tournament environments.

As for combo it's probably just emidln since he works on multitude of storm combo decks and have been proven in tournament play.