New Idea for the Board.

[Peter_Rotten]

I have pulled Spat's idea for a new forum out of IBA's disasterous thread. (Has there ever been a troll so successful? Maybe Bleyewhyice was right! :eek: )

Anyway, let's try to keep this one more serious and on topic. Here is MattE's (Spat) idea to work with and some of the relevant posts:


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.


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.
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 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 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.


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?

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.

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.

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?
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.

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.

[Peter_Rotten]

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.

(refering to PR's version: 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.

[Peter_Rotten]

I'm a big fan of the KISS method (keep it simple, stupid). So here is the idea as it stands. I'd like to try to keep it as simple as possible, so I'm looking for some suggestions here.

1. The Mods create a Buzz Forum (I like the term Spotlight Forum better and I think I'm pulling rank for on that one :tongue: )

2. 10 Buzzards are selected (we can figure out a better name).
- Buzzards are chosen from ALL members on the site
- I propose a limit on Adepts per group of Buzzards- maybe 2, 3, or 4?
- I'm unsure about the best way to choose the Buzzards. Some sort of voting process would be useful
- I'm unsure about how long a Buzzard should serve
- I'm unsure if Buzzards should have Mod rights in the Spotlight lounge (This can cause some logistical issues because I will not be allowing 10 "random" members access to the Reported Post Forum or the Mod Forum).

2a. Buzzards' job will possibly include the following:
- Choosing 5 threads to be placed in the Spotlight Forum (see #3).
- Promoting/monitoring discussion in those threads
- I'm unsure if they should be Modding those threads (editing flames, officially warning members, etc.)
- How long should a Buzzard serve?

3. Spotlight Threads
- Threads can include decks from N&D, article discussion, format discussion - I would think just about anything NOT from the Established or DTBF
- Anyone can posts in the Spotlight Threads
- I'm unsure how long a thread should remain a Spotlight Thread

So, that's what we have so far. How can we simplify? What can we refine?

[Skeggi]

I'm not really seeing the point - what's the real use of this Buzz forum? For people who are too lazy to browse theSource themselves?

[Peter_Rotten]

I'm not really seeing the point - what's the real use of this Buzz forum? For people who are too lazy to browse theSource themselves?

The purpose would be to highlight specific threads and possibly focus community effort in a specific area. It would be like saying, "Hey let's work with this deck or idea for awhile and see if we can significantly improve it."

And like Spat said,
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.

[Brehn]

2a. Buzzards' job will possibly include the following:
- Choosing 5 threads to be placed in the Spotlight Forum (see #3).
(...)
3. Spotlight Threads
- Threads can include decks from N&D, article discussion, format discussion - I would think just about anything NOT from the Established or DTBF


Problem: quality threads have to exist in the first place.

I've almost stopped reading N&D entirely because 95% of the threads there are just crappy crap. In some article discussion threads there might be relevant (format-relevant) discussion, but most of them are just plain feedback threads. Format discussion - there are good ones and there are horrible ones which are full of flames, circular logic, flawed logic, etc (and the current adepts are often not better than the normal users here).


For people who are too lazy to browse theSource themselves?
While this is an exaggeration I agree that it's a step in this direction.


Suggestion: why don't these buzzards start those threads in the first place?

(Yep, this is a ton of work for them. But we want to achieve something here, right?)


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

Every new deck idea promotion requires a well-written starting post IMO. And often the players who have success with a new deck idea either are incompetent of writing a decent starting post and defending their choices properly etc. - or they simply aren't interested in promoting the deck here and ignore this site. Or there already is a thread on this deck which is so full of crap that it's not possible to rescue it. This is the giant black hole I'd want the new adepts to cover.

[Peter_Rotten]

Problem: quality threads have to exist in the first place.

I've almost stopped reading N&D entirely because 95% of the threads there are just crappy crap. In some article discussion threads there might be relevant (format-relevant) discussion, but most of them are just plain feedback threads. Format discussion - there are good ones and there are horrible ones which are full of flames.

Maybe the Buzzards can find diamonds in the rough. Maybe they can re-start a thread. "Hey look at this Merfolk list found in this crappy thread. It has some potential. Let's work on it."

[The Rack]

PR, here's a little suggestion of mine. If yo had a spotlight forum you could have everyone post in it just have the forum tightly moderated. Therefore you could have all the peoples ideas that have a clue and not the random troll. What do you think about that?

[Brehn]

PR, here's a little suggestion of mine. If yo had a spotlight forum you could have everyone post in it just have the forum tightly moderated. Therefore you could have all the peoples ideas that have a clue and not the random troll. What do you think about that?

HEY WHY DID MY POST GET DELETED YOU BUNCH OF ELITIST FUCKERS?

...this will arise extremely often.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I don't know why people keep ignoring the point that everyone would be able to post in the threads in question.


My only problem with the original idea is that I'm afraid it would lead to attempted central planning, with the most popular members rotating and trying to control the flow of ideas. This would encourage more like-minded people and yes-men to agree with the popular posters/buzzards/whatever, and tend to discourage criticism from the other side. In short, I'm worried about it being a sandbox.

I don't yet have a solution to this concern; I'm thinking on it.

[Elfrago]

Buzzers should absolutely not have Mod rights in the Spotlight lounge.

Otherwise:

HEY WHY DID MY POST GET DELETED YOU BUNCH OF ELITIST FUCKERS? YOU'RE NOT EVEN A REAL MOD!!!

[Skeggi]

The purpose would be to highlight specific threads and possibly focus community effort in a specific area. It would be like saying, "Hey let's work with this deck or idea for awhile and see if we can significantly improve it."

That's exactly what happens with the current threads on the first page of all three forums right now. I don't see the need to highlight 10 extra threads. It can only generate more spam and noise as there will always be people coming into these Buzz forums and start their idea-diarrea, which is purely based on biased ideas and hypothesis: not alot of real facts or statistics.

The idea is nice, but so was the idea of Communism and that didn't work either.


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.

A: Not true, people who think this should browse developmental more.
B: Not true, only whiners think this. The Adept system could perhaps be exploited more, but please, stop the noise from randomguy@ijoinedatournamentonce

[Peter_Rotten]

@Skeggi. Other than creating some work for the Mod staff, where's the harm in trying the idea for a month or three? If we try it and it fails, then nothing is really lost other than some of the Mod's time (probably mine).

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

For the record, I did reply to CrankyNightmare's post as well.





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.

Re: other points



I'm not really seeing the point - what's the real use of this Buzz forum? For people who are too lazy to browse theSource themselves?


Problem: quality threads have to exist in the first place.

I've almost stopped reading N&D entirely because 95% of the threads there are just crappy crap. In some article discussion threads there might be relevant (format-relevant) discussion, but most of them are just plain feedback threads. Format discussion - there are good ones and there are horrible ones which are full of flames, circular logic, flawed logic, etc (and the current adepts are often not better than the normal users here).

That is precisely why effort needs to be made to give a fair shot to the 5% that have merit.


Suggestion: why don't these buzzards start those threads in the first place?

(Yep, this is a ton of work for them. But we want to achieve something here, right?)

You've answered your own question, and also the larger question of why this idea requires a seperate forum:


I've almost stopped reading N&D entirely because 95% of the threads there are just crappy crap.


That's exactly what happens with the current threads on the first page of all three forums right now. I don't see the need to highlight 10 extra threads.

I agree. 10 is way too many. No more than 5.


It can only generate more spam and noise as there will always be people coming into these Buzz forums and start their idea-diarrea, which is purely based on biased ideas and hypothesis: not alot of real facts or statistics.

By this logic, why bother having a message board at all, since that will always be a potential problem?


The idea is nice, but so was the idea of Communism and that didn't work either.

Democracy was also, at some point, a "nice idea".

Your point?

[Bahamuth]

First of all, this is a great idea, not only because this gives members the opportunity to have their own vote on what actually happens on this site, but also because it will certainly stimulate more discussion in the buzzed threads.

Many members on this site are especially active on certain decks, or maybe even one deck. If one of the members would be elected to become a buzzard, they will have to be expected to be able to give some food for discussion in the involved threads. Because many members only really know much about one or two certain decks, it would be best to have regular rotation between buzzards.

Also, new innovations definately don't have to come from the N&D forum. As already stated, most threads there are complete crap. If one or two get nominated (out of 5), It'd be fine i think.

[Atwa]

I for one do do not really like the idea of the "buzzers".

Highlighting certain topics for a period of a month is a good idea, however I think the adepts and mods are qualified enough to pick out a few threads a month.

I have confidence in the current group of adepts to do a good job with this. I do not have the biased opinion like some others that they are a little group of elitists who only want to push their own agenda.

In my opinion, the idea of buzzers is just so all the people who feel ignored (because they haven't been elected, but really feel they deserve it) can feel a little more special for a short amount of time. In my opinion people should be able to suggest topics, but I feel it's a waste of time to appoint people just for that task, or even make a specail usergroup for it.

Summery: I like to highlight a few threads each month (either stickied or in a special subforum), however let current adept deside which ones. Yet another usergroup isn't going to make things easier.

And as a last remark, I remember certain people saying some adepts didn't feel like obligations. Why keep them adepts? Adepts were all appointed because they were an asset for the site. They can still be an asset as regular members. Apoint (or keep) adepts who actually want to do a little extra effort for they title, or it won't have any meaning at all.

[Brehn]

Problem: quality threads have to exist in the first place.

I've almost stopped reading N&D entirely because 95% of the threads there are just crappy crap. In some article discussion threads there might be relevant (format-relevant) discussion, but most of them are just plain feedback threads. Format discussion - there are good ones and there are horrible ones which are full of flames, circular logic, flawed logic, etc (and the current adepts are often not better than the normal users here).That is precisely why effort needs to be made to give a fair shot to the 5% that have merit.


Suggestion: why don't these buzzards start those threads in the first place?

(Yep, this is a ton of work for them. But we want to achieve something here, right?)

You've answered your own question, and also the larger question of why this idea requires a seperate forum:


I've almost stopped reading N&D entirely because 95% of the threads there are just crappy crap.



Thing is, I didn't want to say "95% of all threads in N&D are about topics one could ignore". More like "95% of all threads in N&D are not what a thread on a serious discussion forum should look like". I believe that it's very difficult for new members to judge which N&D-threads are relevant and which are not - because relevance and quality don't go hand in hand there.

I don't want to give those 5% a shot. The 5% I referred to are well-organized threads with productive discussion, but mostly about irrelevant stuff. I want to give the more-than-5% which are about relevant decks a shot. And those threads are horrible most of the time. Therefore, it's not possible IMO to "highlight" a thread without restarting it.



Apoint (or keep) adepts who actually want to do a little extra effort for they title, or it won't have any meaning at all.

QFT. Throw the inactive ones out.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I for one do do not really like the idea of the "buzzers".

Highlighting certain topics for a period of a month is a good idea, however I think the adepts and mods are qualified enough to pick out a few threads a month.

I have confidence in the current group of adepts to do a good job with this. I do not have the biased opinion like some others that they are a little group of elitists who only want to push their own agenda.

In my opinion, the idea of buzzers is just so all the people who feel ignored (because they haven't been elected, but really feel they deserve it) can feel a little more special for a short amount of time. In my opinion people should be able to suggest topics, but I feel it's a waste of time to appoint people just for that task, or even make a specail usergroup for it.

Summery: I like to highlight a few threads each month (either stickied or in a special subforum), however let current adept deside which ones. Yet another usergroup isn't going to make things easier.

And as a last remark, I remember certain people saying some adepts didn't feel like obligations. Why keep them adepts? Adepts were all appointed because they were an asset for the site. They can still be an asset as regular members. Apoint (or keep) adepts who actually want to do a little extra effort for they title, or it won't have any meaning at all.

Here's my problem with this;

1. It is easily open to charges of elitism, and those charges would be pretty hard to argue with, since they'd basically be true. There are several adepts who's opinions, certainly on Legacy, anyway, I just do not respect. When it comes to the current meta-game, for instance, I have virtually no idea what I'm talking about. I've been out of the loop for too long. Overhauling the adept group to trim it down to currently format active members seems like more work for less gain than what I'm proposing.

2. On the other side, there are regular members whose opinions, especially within their deck or decks of focus, I respect highly.

The reasons people are made adepts, or mods, is mostly a mix of longevity and posting quality. But those are not the qualities that the "BUZZards" will need. They will need enthusiasm(many more basic members are enthusiastic about the format and especially newer deck ideas than adepts/mods) and they will need to be active on the board, but we're not necessarily looking for the same quality of posting(although obviously we wouldn't want complete lurkers to fill this role).


Thing is, I didn't want to say "95% of all threads in N&D are about topics one could ignore". More like "95% of all threads in N&D are not what a thread on a serious discussion forum should look like". I believe that it's very difficult for new members to judge which N&D-threads are relevant and which are not - because relevance and quality don't go hand in hand there.

But that's such an easily solved complaint that it borders on trivial. The mods can simply edit the opening post for grammar and spelling corrections.


I don't want to give those 5% a shot. The 5% I referred to are well-organized threads with productive discussion, but mostly about irrelevant stuff. I want to give the more-than-5% which are about relevant decks a shot. And those threads are horrible most of the time. Therefore, it's not possible IMO to "highlight" a thread without restarting it.

I don't know what you mean by "horrible". Could you clarify?

[Nightmare]

God, BUZZard is such a catchy title. Whoever thought that up is a genius.

Spat is, unsurprisingly, spot on when it comes to the #1 reason I think we need "new blood" to select these topics: Enthusiasm. Most of the stuff getting posted in N&D is coming from the blue names, not the teal. They're more concerned with getting their deck helped out, whereas the more established players already have a support group or team to help with that. I think its important that this be used as a pseudo-team for new and promising decks, as well as oldies that can use a fresh look.

[FoolofaTook]

I'm not really seeing the point - what's the real use of this Buzz forum? For people who are too lazy to browse theSource themselves?

The real use of the Buzz forum would be to have a place to go for current events and to see stuff that is not hidebound orthodoxy from the Fourth Zuul Resurrection of 2867.

As an example there would have been threads started there for both Elves and Counterslivers after the recent GenCon Championships with detailed analysis of what the decklists were, what they were trying to do and why it worked. Additions to the existing Elves and Counterslivers threads in EDF aren't remotely close to handling what the impact of those decks on the GenCon competition was, mainly because you need to read through like 2+ years of thread to understand what the advocates and detractors are all talking about in context to the events of today.

There might have been a thread in there on why Threshold and Standstill failed to place, and why generally the decks that we consider to be tier 1 decks didn't really show up at GenCon and act like tier 1 decks.

[Atwa]

God, BUZZard is such a catchy title. Whoever thought that up is a genius.

Spat is, unsurprisingly, spot on when it comes to the #1 reason I think we need "new blood" to select these topics: Enthusiasm. Most of the stuff getting posted in N&D is coming from the blue names, not the teal. They're more concerned with getting their deck helped out, whereas the more established players already have a support group or team to help with that. I think its important that this be used as a pseudo-team for new and promising decks, as well as oldies that can use a fresh look.

You do have a point here. However, how do you suggest these people need to be appionted?

When just randomly making members Buzzers, you always have the risk you select 10 people who's biggest accomplishment in Legacy is signing up to the source and playing around in mishmash.

When you carefully select these people, you still can create the illusion of elitism this way.

I was just wondering. I do feel the need for some fresh ideas, however, what good will it be if the only decks appointed are either useless takes on old petdecks (ports of Chimera of Trix, which have been tried over and over but simply won't work in Legacy) only because a few new members like them or decks which are being pushed by the "old user group"?

If I remember correctly, most judges in the CaNG were adepts. I think they are able do deliver a pretty unbiased opinion about new deck ideas. This is the reasoning I use when I say they should be able to do a good job on selecting threads for a new highlighted sub-forum.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I'm not sure that's true. I think the judges were a mix of adepts and regular members.

re: selection:


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 BUZZard!
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 BUZZards for the next cycle!
B: Gee willickers, that does sound swell!

A: It sure does, Billy.

It sure does.

Keep in mind that the details are just my spitballing.

re: Jack's earlier comment about the possibility of "Gangs/parties" of users dominating; see the part about sounding off in the Adept/Mod lounge. If it appears as though some are trying to monopolize the system, I think the mods and adepts will be able to tell.

[Brehn]

Take Faeries. We got those threads:

UB Faeries (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10720) by thefreakaccident. Full of flames and off-topic decklists.
BUW Faerie Fish (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10269[/url) by Mental. Grammar nazis, one-liners, etc.
"Fairy Bobstill" (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10264) by gosumog. Also horrible.
Ubg Faerie-Fish (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10280) by Windux. An attempt to create separate topics about different decks instead of posting an "off-topic" decklist into another thread. Only 6 responses.

That's just an example. Off the top of my head, the following decks don't have adequate threads: Rock variants (not N&D), Survival variants (not N&D), Faeries (N&D), Dreaded Fish (N&D, but it should actually be in the DTB-Forum...). It might be a task for a new adept (no, I won't use the term buzzard :P) to rework this.

[Skeggi]

@Skeggi. Other than creating some work for the Mod staff, where's the harm in trying the idea for a month or three? If we try it and it fails, then nothing is really lost other than some of the Mod's time (probably mine).

Well I guess that's true. Okay; you have my permission :tongue:

So to summarize this Buzz Forum idea:

-It's a forum with about 5 threads.
-It's a forum where everyone can post in the threads, but the threads are created by BUZZards, who also mod the posts.
-The BUZZards are a group of intellectual Legacy enthusiasts, gathered from all over the world.
-The threads in the Buzz Forum will be about decks which have developped new potential via new cards in sets (or unbanning of a card), a newly discovered combo, or a change in rules (for example, errata on Flash). (Not sure about this one, but it seems it would turn out to be something like this)

Is this correct? I'm pretty bad at reading alot of text, so I always need to summarize :)

[Dark_Shakuras]

I'm a big fan of the KISS method (keep it simple, stupid). So here is the idea as it stands. I'd like to try to keep it as simple as possible, so I'm looking for some suggestions here.

1. The Mods create a Buzz Forum (I like the term Spotlight Forum better and I think I'm pulling rank for on that one :tongue: )

2. 10 Buzzards are selected (we can figure out a better name).
- Buzzards are chosen from ALL members on the site - Sounds Good.

- I propose a limit on Adepts per group of Buzzards- maybe 2, 3, or 4? - Again good.

- I'm unsure about the best way to choose the Buzzards. Some sort of voting process would be useful - One admin should recieve PM's for nominations. Make a set of standards for nominations. Then open a thread, in which the admin put all applicants who meet said standards. People vote via PM to the same mod. Give 2 days for nominations (if announced previously) and then 3 days for voteing. If you miss out, better luck next time. (Standards should be subjective, but also simple. ie. Good posting habits, frequents the Deck forums (ie. not MM) etc.)

- I'm unsure about how long a Buzzard should serve - 1 Quarter? (3 months)

- I'm unsure if Buzzards should have Mod rights in the Spotlight lounge (This can cause some logistical issues because I will not be allowing 10 "random" members access to the Reported Post Forum or the Mod Forum). - Can you give them a limited Mod rights? Then they can edit/move posts only in Spotlight, and can't see anything else.

2a. Buzzards' job will possibly include the following:
- Choosing 5 threads to be placed in the Spotlight Forum (see #3). - Choosing 5 so 50 threads? or ALL voting and choosing 5 so 5 threads? Latter seems better.

- Promoting/monitoring discussion in those threads - Which should be required. If you do not fulfill this duty, you should be dropped and not recommended next voting period.

- I'm unsure if they should be Modding those threads (editing flames, officially warning members, etc.) - No. They should be allowed to edit posts, but they are there to make the decks work. Not the members. It will be a better system if all they have to worry about is making sure the decks are being discussed properly. They should however be allowed to report spam to Admins/Real Mods for action to take place.

- How long should a Buzzard serve? - 3 Months (1 Quarter)

3. Spotlight Threads
- Threads can include decks from N&D, article discussion, format discussion - I would think just about anything NOT from the Established or DTBF - I would so no. Maybe 4 N&D decks, 1 Article Discussion, 1 Format Discussion. This make it so we don't have 5 decks, or 5 format discussions.

- Anyone can posts in the Spotlight Threads - Yes, but it should be like the DTB forum. Be careful what you say as standards are higher.

- I'm unsure how long a thread should remain a Spotlight Thread - The "Buzzards" (Spotters?) should be able to determine that. I would say once in however, it should last the full 3 months, and can be changed with each group.

So, that's what we have so far. How can we simplify? What can we refine?

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I, for one, really, really like this idea, and think that it has the potential to be extremely fruitful/useful. That said, let's take the time to think it through carefully (as you guys have been doing) to avoid a morass.

One thing that I think might need more explicit articulation is the purpose of the forum, and the concommitant criteria (for lack of a better word; I know we want the choice to be free) for choosing threads. After all, there's little point in such a forum if the same decks (particularly those in the metagame forum) get chosen round after round. So... are we looking to develop the underdeveloped, to update the outdated, introduce the new, or what exactly? So long as the goal is clear from the get-go, I think we'll have no trouble.

[Aggro_zombies]

I'm going to chip in for the nay camp here. If people want to see decks with potential, why not just browse the Tournament Reports forum or the Historical Top Eight thread? Typically when something interesting crops up there, someone makes a thread for it elsewhere on the site. This idea seems rather pointless except as a way to make us forum rabble feel important, which in most cases is unwarrented. Most of the people who actually do big things for the format are either Adepts or are recognized as authorities in one respect or another (like emidln on FT, for example).

Thumbs down.

[Slag]

I'm going to chip in for the nay camp here. If people want to see decks with potential, why not just browse the Tournament Reports forum or the Historical Top Eight thread? Typically when something interesting crops up there, someone makes a thread for it elsewhere on the site. This idea seems rather pointless except as a way to make us forum rabble feel important, which in most cases is unwarrented. Most of the people who actually do big things for the format are either Adepts or are recognized as authorities in one respect or another (like emidln on FT, for example).

Thumbs down.
Ideally, this is a way to apply those big thing people and the good ideas they have to a new concept, in addition to getting the best ideas out of the wide audience of other members. It would be the source making creative strides in the format as an entity, rather than as a loose-knit collection of posters.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

re: Jack's earlier comment about the possibility of "Gangs/parties" of users dominating; see the part about sounding off in the Adept/Mod lounge. If it appears as though some are trying to monopolize the system, I think the mods and adepts will be able to tell.

What if they're the ones doing it?

I guess as long as it's kept one man, one vote, however, this should be fairly hard to accomplish with ten slots available, and non-consecutive term limits.

Although, in terms of limiting applications, it may make more sense to require a nomination and second from someone besides yourself. It'd narrow down the spam applications.

[The Rack]

I like Spats suggestion the best except for instead of "one other European" I would have 1 other person from wherever excluding the countries already picked. Because Brazil has some knowledgeable people there and I think Australia does too. So just sayin.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I'm going to chip in for the nay camp here. If people want to see decks with potential, why not just browse the Tournament Reports forum or the Historical Top Eight thread?

1.Because the tournament report thread usually does not contain links to the discussion of decks. And decks not in the DTB forum can be rather difficult to find.

2. Potential implies that the potential is as of yet, to some extant, unrealized.

The metagame forum is useful in that it can give you a good view of the recent past of the metagame. It cannot, however, anticipate future developments. That's where the Buzz forum comes in.


Typically when something interesting crops up there, someone makes a thread for it elsewhere on the site.

Which usually languishes and dies in a sea of crap, because only those who put forward a lot of effort can sift the good and the bad. Besides which, anyone who does put forward the effort will be limited in terms of what their looking for by their own bias. The BUZZ forum gives you a different perspective.


That's just an example. Off the top of my head, the following decks don't have adequate threads: Rock variants (not N&D), Survival variants (not N&D), Faeries (N&D), Dreaded Fish (N&D, but it should actually be in the DTB-Forum...). It might be a task for a new adept (no, I won't use the term buzzard :P) to rework this.

There's no reason they can't create a thread and then put it in the forum, if no thread existed for its discussion.

I also don't see that much of a problem if half the posts in a given thread are dumb. That's much of the metagame forum anyway. Welcome to the internet.

[Aggro_zombies]

Ideally, this is a way to apply those big thing people and the good ideas they have to a new concept, in addition to getting the best ideas out of the wide audience of other members. It would be the source making creative strides in the format as an entity, rather than as a loose-knit collection of posters.
Um...isn't that how the entire site works, theoretically? How is this new forum any different?


1.Because the tournament report thread usually does not contain links to the discussion of decks. And decks not in the DTB forum can be rather difficult to find.
So, what, the point of the BUZZ forum is to make life easier for people too stupid and/or lazy to use the search function?


2. Potential implies that the potential is as of yet, to some extant, unrealized.
Then how do you figure out whether something should go into the BUZZ forum to begin with? "It seems like it could be good"? There are quite a lot of ideas that seem like they have potential, but end up being total flops. The biggest indicator of whether or not a deck actually does have potential is strong tournament performance. If a deck does well in tournaments against competent opponents playing good decks, then it should be in the Top 8 thread and Reports forum. And if that's the case, someone will see the deck, figure it sounds neat, and make a thread for it elsewhere (case in point: Faeries, which seem like they have potential but have thus far failed to realize it). If the point of the BUZZ forum is to highlight The Next Big Thing, why choke it up with things that sound neat but don't actually hold water in practice?


Which usually languishes and dies in a sea of crap, because only those who put forward a lot of effort can sift the good and the bad. Besides which, anyone who does put forward the effort will be limited in terms of what their looking for by their own bias. The BUZZ forum gives you a different perspective.
Who's to say that the BUZZ forum won't degenerate into a sea of crap? Call me crazy, but somehow I have these nightmare visions of endless posts of "HAY GUIZ HAV U TRYED THIS CARD YET LOL ITS SO GUD ~^^~ !!!?!?!" without anyone ever bothering to do anything other than pitch wild speculations around. If you want armchair deck theory, there's more than enough of that elsewhere on the site. And if you want to stamp out that sort of thing, you'd have to moderate the forum into oblivion, which would have a stifling effect on any relevant discussion anyway. At that point you might as well just make it "Adepts Only" and let competent people experiment with the decks, or just post locked primers so that people can read about the latest developments in a newspaper-ish format without cluttering things up with retardation.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

So, what, the point of the BUZZ forum is to make life easier for people too stupid and/or lazy to use the search function?

I'm sorry, am I just an ignorant savage or is there no way to search for "interesting and fresh deck ideas" using the search function?


Then how do you figure out whether something should go into the BUZZ forum to begin with? "It seems like it could be good"? There are quite a lot of ideas that seem like they have potential, but end up being total flops. The biggest indicator of whether or not a deck actually does have potential is strong tournament performance.

Dude. You are not on the same page. I'm not even sure we're reading the same book.

I'm sure that many of the decks in the forum will turn out to be flops. But unless people explore the idea, how will we know?

Is Elves a flop? A fluke? Or something underdeveloped that shows strong potential? And would we know to ask this question at all if it were not for one event?

What harm could there possibly be if not every deck that appears in the forum ends up in the upper tiers? If many end up being tier 3, at least they will be more optimized tier 3 decks than when they started.


If a deck does well in tournaments against competent opponents playing good decks, then it should be in the Top 8 thread and Reports forum. And if that's the case, someone will see the deck, figure it sounds neat, and make a thread for it elsewhere (case in point: Faeries, which seem like they have potential but have thus far failed to realize it). If the point of the BUZZ forum is to highlight The Next Big Thing, why choke it up with things that sound neat but don't actually hold water in practice?

Wow, that's a brilliant straw man.

Note to self: Next time do not suggest putting bad decks in the BUZZ forum.

Oh wait, no one suggested that.

Qualified people affirmed by popular assent will spend effort and time figuring out what decks have potential. They will make some mistakes, and sometimes they will be right.


Who's to say that the BUZZ forum won't degenerate into a sea of crap? Call me crazy, but somehow I have these nightmare visions of endless posts of "HAY GUIZ HAV U TRYED THIS CARD YET LOL ITS SO GUD ~^^~ !!!?!?!" without anyone ever bothering to do anything other than pitch wild speculations around. If you want armchair deck theory, there's more than enough of that elsewhere on the site. And if you want to stamp out that sort of thing, you'd have to moderate the forum into oblivion, which would have a stifling effect on any relevant discussion anyway. At that point you might as well just make it "Adepts Only" and let competent people experiment with the decks, or just post locked primers so that people can read about the latest developments in a newspaper-ish format without cluttering things up with retardation.

No, seriously, I'm willing to discuss valid points, but stop inventing strawman and going into self-indulgent rants about hypothetical situations that no one is advocating.

[Skeggi]

I'm sorry, am I just an ignorant savage or is there no way to search for "interesting and fresh deck ideas" using the search function?

I just googled that. It got me here (http://www.demesne.info/Improve-Your-Home/Deck-Railing.htm) :cool:


No, seriously, I'm willing to discuss valid points, but stop inventing strawman and going into self-indulgent rants about hypothetical situations that no one is advocating.

I'm not, I'm a bit full of the valid points. What do people mean by straw man?

Anyway, I guess we can debate the thing all day/week/month long. The only way to know whether it's useful is to try it I guess.

@P_R, assuming you'll be the one to make this happen: have you begun on building this yet? Do you have a plan?

[Aggro_zombies]

I'm sorry, am I just an ignorant savage or is there no way to search for "interesting and fresh deck ideas" using the search function?
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o226/jbrennan0512/step1.png

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o226/jbrennan0512/step2.png

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o226/jbrennan0512/profit.png

To be serious, though, I simply wished to point out that this proposed forum does nothing the first page of the Established Deck Forum and the New and Developmental Forum don't already do. If you want to spur innovation, open another CaNGD, or solidify the format a little to cut down on the bad deck noise.

[Skeggi]

I hate to be a bitch about this, but that search gave you 2 decks, of which I'm not sure they're interesting and refreshing. The threads are also both dead for quite some time...

[Aggro_zombies]

I hate to be a bitch about this, but that search gave you 2 decks, of which I'm not sure they're interesting and refreshing. The threads are also both dead for quite some time...
Not my problem. He asked for process, I gave it to him.

[Whit3 Ghost]

Oh sweet, I forgot I wrote that.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I see the point A_Z and Skeggi are getting at. If we try to make a new forum, it could contain bad decks, or all the posts could be terrible. Maybe a virile plague will sweep o'er the Earth and snuff out mankind like a wick. When it comes down to it, what's the point of even trying? Who is that third who walks always besides you? When I count, there are only you and I together; but when I look up ahead on the white road, there is another one walking besides you. Son of man, you cannot say, or guess, for you know only a heap of broken images. To Carthage then I came, burning, burning. Shantih, shantih, shantih. Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.

[Aggro_zombies]

I see the point A_Z and Skeggi are getting at. If we try to make a new forum, it could contain bad decks, or all the posts could be terrible. Maybe a virile plague will sweep o'er the Earth and snuff out mankind like a wick. When it comes down to it, what's the point of even trying? Who is that third who walks always besides you? When I count, there are only you and I together; but when I look up ahead on the white road, there is another one walking besides you. Son of man, you cannot say, or guess, for you know only a heap of broken images. To Carthage then I came, burning, burning. Shantih, shantih, shantih. Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.
I like your style. Where did you learn to troll?

My point was not that the forum could contain bad decks, but rather that the only objective standard for evaluating whether or not a deck is bad is testing. If you test a deck and it does well, there are other channels on this site that allow you to post the deck and make a case for it. I simply wished to point out that the proposed forum is essentially a lazy man's Cliff's Notes for the Source, and therefore seemed like a waste.

But hey, if there's such eloquent support for it, just make the damn thing already and be done with it.

[Jak]

I like your style. Where did you learn to troll?

My point was not that the forum could contain bad decks, but rather that the only objective standard for evaluating whether or not a deck is bad is testing. If you test a deck and it does well, there are other channels on this site that allow you to post the deck and make a case for it. I simply wished to point out that the proposed forum is essentially a lazy man's Cliff's Notes for the Source, and therefore seemed like a waste.

But hey, if there's such eloquent support for it, just make the damn thing already and be done with it.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. The forum is meant to help the development of promising deck ideas that would be picked out by a select few. By highlighting these decks, I can guarantee more people will be interested and help to develop it. It would be like focussing all the people of the Source on a few promising ideas. You make it sound like it would just be a bunch of primers of Elves and such where people will go to get information only.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I like your style. Where did you learn to troll?

Sunny Jotunheimr, friend.


My point was not that the forum could contain bad decks, but rather that the only objective standard for evaluating whether or not a deck is bad is testing.

Oh, I see where the confusion comes from. It comes from the fact that your point isn't tangent to anything anyone was saying. No one claimed this was a forum for the best decks.


If you test a deck and it does well, there are other channels on this site that allow you to post the deck and make a case for it. I simply wished to point out that the proposed forum is essentially a lazy man's Cliff's Notes for the Source, and therefore seemed like a waste.

The key defining feature is that you would not be able to post a thread for your deck in said forum. If enough people took interest in the idea, it would be moved to an area to generate more attention, however, which would hopefully encourage people posting better ideas.


But hey, if there's such eloquent support for it, just make the damn thing already and be done with it.

But what guarantee that you'll listen?

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

IBA - Nice Wasteland reference.


I'm not, I'm a bit full of the valid points. What do people mean by straw man?

Anyway, I guess we can debate the thing all day/week/month long. The only way to know whether it's useful is to try it I guess.

Not you, Aggro_Zombie.

A straw man is a mockup of the opponents argument, that bears some resemblance to that argument, but is not actually the same. A person who is strawmaning then attack the fake argument rather than the real one, because it's easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman


@P_R, assuming you'll be the one to make this happen: have you begun on building this yet? Do you have a plan?

I'm also curious. What details need to still be worked out?

[Peter_Rotten]

I'll look at details after a few more cups of coffee.

But first, I need to mention that if this turns out to be a terrible failure, then really what harm comes of it? I can't see how this would harm the board - even if it turns out to suck.

[Skeggi]

But first, I need to mention that if this turns out to be a terrible failure, then really what harm comes of it? I can't see how this would harm the board - even if it turns out to suck.

You don't seem to realize it cuts into your precious WoW time :tongue:

[xsockmonkeyx]

So i thought this BUZZ thing was a pretty awesome idea and I got all excited about it. I was going to point out this one thread in N&D that would be a perfect example of a BUZZ worthy thread....but it didn't work out :/

True story.

[Peter_Rotten]

So i thought this BUZZ thing was a pretty awesome idea and I got all excited about it. I was going to point out this one thread in N&D that would be a perfect example of a BUZZ worthy thread....but it didn't work out :/

True story.

I would love some more details - at least a link.

[scrumdogg]

To be serious, though, I simply wished to point out that this proposed forum does nothing the first page of the Established Deck Forum and the New and Developmental Forum don't already do. If you want to spur innovation, open another CaNGD, or solidify the format a little to cut down on the bad deck noise.

Yes it does, it guarantees that self-aggrandizing twats shouting to get attention can't bury these threads in piles of crap they like to call a 'deck' or 'discussion'. The emo attention whores can ply their sad tricks within the threads themselves, but I'm assuming these threads will have the attention of people willing to slap down the inbred. My concern still revolves around the politicking & whining which will inevitably accompany any sort of 'election' process for BUZZards (a problem of human nature, especially on these boards, not a problem of the concept). Also, the horrific possibility of some of the ravening idiots actually getting elected at some point....