Adepts, etc.

[Killing Joke]

I mean, is there a purpose to them? Shouldnt they write like a monthly article here or something to retain that status? Seems as of late, this place is just The Source: Your Source For Links To Other Sites About Magic. If anything, The majority of the adept titles just seem more like a congratulatory circle jerk for a bunch of friends in the north east.

And the same kind of goes about the whole feedback system. Its like mods and admins gave themselves over 9000 positive feedbacks, and well, everyone else just kind of got shit on. And you know, maybe if you're lucky, they'll come along and neg you if they dont like what you say. Why are only a select few allowed to give feedback? Why isnt that option avaiable for everyone here? Just seems a little fucking biased if you ask me.

Sure, I fully expect some european mod to make a bad one line joke thats totally lost in transation and lock this thread before anyone else can agree with me. Or have some admin give me a neg rep for this "just cause", as thats cool and adult. But whatever, at least I got to say my piece.

[Pastorofmuppets]

Nobody really cares about the rep system.
Seriously, nobody.

[Aggro_zombies]

There are various well-placed people on this site who share some of your sentiments.

Also, anyone can give +rep. Adepts start out with high rep because they're Adepts (more on that status in a moment). Mods and the like start out with more mostly just to mark the fact that they're Mods; a number of the Admins have disabled their rep, for example. Anyway, anyone can give rep, but as I understand it normal members only count for +/-1 rep, whereas Mods and Adepts count for +/-4 rep points. The idea is that people with reasonable, thoughtful opinions will be recognized regardless of whether people agree with them. This is supposed to encourage users to put thought into the format and be prepared to defend themselves, and to not be afraid to express dud opinions if they can make a reasonable defense of them.

In practice, no one actually gives rep, or in most cases even knows how. Also, there are ways to rig the system, assuming you have a large enough circle of friends. I agree that it's not that great, but it was supposed to be a more democratic way to select Adepts than the old method, which was a secret Adept ballot of some sort. I'm of the opinion that the system has failed, for various reasons.

Adepts originally were supposed to be people who put a lot of time and effort into the format, and are generally good people to listen to if you have questions or want advice. In practice, many of the current crop of Adepts post rarely, or don't make substantial posts when they do post, so the system does not work as intended. You could argue that it should therefore be scrapped; I would argue that it's fine, as long as the current Adepts reflect who's active on the site and the community (for example, the Hatfield brothers seem to be relatively active players, but basically never post on the site).

I agree that the current system is bad, though. It can be fixed, but it may just be better to scrap it. But then, we aren't responsible for these decisions, eh?

In b4 Nihil or PR locks this.

[Jak]

Wtf? I had no idea "regular" members could give rep...

[Aggro_zombies]

Wtf? I had no idea "regular" members could give rep...
I think you can. To be more precise, I know you can "fill out" the little rep doodad in the corner of people's posts, but whether or not that actually counts towards their rep is uncertain to me. I'm fairly certain regular members can give -rep, and it would be strange to have it not also work for +rep. But I don't actually know for certain.

[Jak]

I think you can. To be more precise, I know you can "fill out" the little rep doodad in the corner of people's posts, but whether or not that actually counts towards their rep is uncertain to me. I'm fairly certain regular members can give -rep, and it would be strange to have it not also work for +rep. But I don't actually know for certain.

No rep doodad is on other people's posts. Only mine. I think its because you have reached a certain rep level or something.

[Bardo]

In b4 Nihil or PR locks this.
I'm going to leave this open for now since I'm curious to know how others feel about the rep / Adept system.

@ All - Try to make this productive and not a bunch of pointless grousing.

[MMogg]

No rep doodad is on other people's posts. Only mine. I think its because you have reached a certain rep level or something.

+1 I can't do it either. AZ, you have the gift and the power . . . we tremble in fear at its might and pray that you wield it with benevolence. :wink:

@ Bardo: honestly I don't think it matters much to anyone, or at least so it seems. I agree with the OP that The Source would be better off if it were also to publish Legacy articles and have writers, but then again, I know you guys can't pay writers because The Source isn't a business like CFB or SCG. That said, it does seem like a nexus for Legacy links rather than a source from which new information derives. The Adept system is obviously archaic, but I have no feelings one way or the other. Adept or regular user, one can pretty much figure out who is knowledgeable and worth listening to and who isn't through reading threads. Kind of like with politics... I don't care who tries saying John Bolton is a former ambassador and/or he's knowledgeable, he's a total assclown who's not worth listening to. Watch any one of his interviews and you'll know immediately.

[Aggro_zombies]

No rep doodad is on other people's posts. Only mine. I think its because you have reached a certain rep level or something.

+1 I can't do it either. AZ, you have the gift and the power . . . we tremble in fear at its might and pray that you wield it with benevolence. :wink:
...huh. Well, I don't use it very often anyway, usually just for exceptionally good or exceptionally troll-y posts.

[Jak]

I think the rep system is fine. If it was used a bit more, then I think people wouldn't have problems with it (the only complaining I ever see is that people aren't getting their positive rep and that there are older adepts who don't do much). People say they don't care about it, which is what they should think because it shouldn't affect the quality of your posts anyway, but it is always nice to get recognition for a well thought out post that took you time to write.

I think people are upset because there isn't a lot of good coming out of it, not because it is bad. The system has potential. I think if more admins/adepts gave out rep, then there wouldn't be complaints (sadly it is the internet though, so who knows).

[Zilla]

I mean, is there a purpose to them? Shouldnt they write like a monthly article here or something to retain that status? Seems as of late, this place is just The Source: Your Source For Links To Other Sites About Magic. If anything, The majority of the adept titles just seem more like a congratulatory circle jerk for a bunch of friends in the north east.

And the same kind of goes about the whole feedback system. Its like mods and admins gave themselves over 9000 positive feedbacks, and well, everyone else just kind of got shit on. And you know, maybe if you're lucky, they'll come along and neg you if they dont like what you say. Why are only a select few allowed to give feedback? Why isnt that option avaiable for everyone here? Just seems a little fucking biased if you ask me.

Sure, I fully expect some european mod to make a bad one line joke thats totally lost in transation and lock this thread before anyone else can agree with me. Or have some admin give me a neg rep for this "just cause", as thats cool and adult. But whatever, at least I got to say my piece.
You are SO right.

+rep

[majikal]

This thread has made my day. :laugh:

[Aggro_zombies]

You are SO right.

+rep
HOLY SHIT IT'S Zilla!!!!!

[Killing Joke]

Also, anyone can give +rep. Adepts start out with high rep because they're Adepts (more on that status in a moment). Mods and the like start out with more mostly just to mark the fact that they're Mods; a number of the Admins have disabled their rep, for example. Anyway, anyone can give rep, but as I understand it normal members only count for +/-1 rep, whereas Mods and Adepts count for +/-4 rep points. The idea is that people with reasonable, thoughtful opinions will be recognized regardless of whether people agree with them. This is supposed to encourage users to put thought into the format and be prepared to defend themselves, and to not be afraid to express dud opinions if they can make a reasonable defense of them.



I think you can. To be more precise, I know you can "fill out" the little rep doodad in the corner of people's posts, but whether or not that actually counts towards their rep is uncertain to me. I'm fairly certain regular members can give -rep, and it would be strange to have it not also work for +rep. But I don't actually know for certain.

Can someone post a tutorial on this? As the bottom left of the persons post only gives me the option to report it. And the + sign on the botton right is for multi-quotes, not reps. Maybe Im just missing something.

[Aggro_zombies]

Can someone post a tutorial on this? As the bottom left of the persons post only gives me the option to report it. And the + sign on the botton right is for multi-quotes, not reps. Maybe Im just missing something.
It should look like a little sheriff's badge in the lower left corner of the post.

[umbowta]

HA! I totally forgot about the rep system. +1 to not giving a shit.

[TheMightyQuinn]

It should look like a little sheriff's badge in the lower left corner of the post.

I think I just accidentally reported you....

Kidding...I have no badge, just the "!" but then I barely post so I probably don't have any rep either way.

The Adept system doesn't bother me. The only really difference is that your name is teal. Whatever. People will listen to you if you put thought and effort into posts regardless of your status or the number of posts you have. And hey, you can always go the opposite rout and get a green name by outdoing radley.

[dahcmai]

Personally, I don't see the point. I long ago figured out who was worth listening to and who was "that guy" who put Dark Confidant or Goyf in everything cause it's "amazing".

It's fine for newer people though. Some people are not worth listening too at all and it's definitely worth knowing which if you don't know everyone. Sometimes, I almost think we should just use our real names. That says a lot.

It's probably worth keeping for lack of a better tool though. If I knew of a way, I'd say, but until then, I doubt anyone else has a better idea.

[Master Shake]

I would like to address a point: When was the last time a new adept was made? It seems that the number of new adepts really has not kept up with the number that have drifted away from the scene or Magic all together. I can't say that such actions would encourage growth in the forums, but it is something I've thought about from time to time and discussed with other Scourers.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Reputation is a terrible way to rate things. Even pi4meterftw had some good insights, but was obviously rightly banned for douchebaggedness. Saying someone's word is less useful to listen to is much less helpful than being able to rank a post specifically. That would probably be a nightmare to implement, but would be a lot easier for noobies to see which advice to listen to. If a lot of people would agree that a specific post is correct and worth listening to then it would be obvious that it is better than some trolling post.

Blanket statements are fun though, so saying someone specifically is not worth listening to is entertaining, especially when they make good posts. But mods really don't keep up with the current system at all. I mean, I'm 1000 posts in and I think I've seen 2 ups and 1 down so far. Could mean all my posts are just mediocre, and that's fine then, but I haven't seen anyones rating change yet except for the OP.

[Aggro_zombies]

Reputation is a terrible way to rate things. Even pi4meterftw had some good insights, but was obviously rightly banned for douchebaggedness. Saying someone's word is less useful to listen to is much less helpful than being able to rank a post specifically. That would probably be a nightmare to implement, but would be a lot easier for noobies to see which advice to listen to. If a lot of people would agree that a specific post is correct and worth listening to then it would be obvious that it is better than some trolling post.

Blanket statements are fun though, so saying someone specifically is not worth listening to is entertaining, especially when they make good posts. But mods really don't keep up with the current system at all. I mean, I'm 1000 posts in and I think I've seen 2 ups and 1 down so far. Could mean all my posts are just mediocre, and that's fine then, but I haven't seen anyones rating change yet except for the OP.
One could argue that ratings systems in general are bad, but leaving post-modernist hand-wringing aside, you could say that in general some people make more good statements than bad statements. To revisit your example, pi4 wasn't really worth listening to because the signal to troll ratio was so out of whack, so you ended up having to go through a shitton of flamey garbage before you got to anything insightful. Hell, even his insightful posts were often couched in flamey garbage. Very little good ever comes of things like that.

Tracking individual posts isn't particularly helpful either because information becomes dated in an evolving format like Legacy, so a post in the Merfolk thread that's helpful now might not be as useful six months from now. However, the regular players of the deck, who get the lion's share of practice in, are worth listening to - and that's something that can be tracked somewhat well by rep.

The real issue is that no one gives out rep, so the system is essentially meaningless because the good posters and the bad posters all still have no rep (except for the blatantly bad ones like troll4meter).

[Atwa]

Once every few years a discussion like this breaks lose. And most of the time it comes down to people who feel neglected for not being made an Adept (or in this case not receiving positive feedback on their posts).

Let me ask you this: Why care?

The one thing about the Source I liked when I joined some years ago was the fact your posts didn't get rated. This way, even if some people disliked your ideas, you could still inspire some others who would still ready you, what wouldn't happen if your posts got a negative rating. Sometimes I feel these kind of things are used more like a popularity contest then a way to actually rate people's knowledge about the game.

Same thing applies for the Adept status, I simply see no need for it. Some people argue this is good so new people on the boards can easily recognize who is worth listening to. To me, this only seems to encourage lazy thinking. I know how the adept status came in place when the site was still young, however this system doesn't have any added benefit for the site. Things would be different if adepts had to do a monthly contribution to the site or something (write an article is something which comes to mind), but how things stand now, it's an empty title.

Now I don't really care about adepts or rating, both things never made me take anyone more serious or made me treat anyone different, but seeing this discussion comes up every 1-2 years, wouldn't it just make more sense to abolish the whole idea of ranking people?

[Vacrix]

If reputation needs to be made official, than I say it ought not to be called reputation. Example: Emidln. You're an adept if you know your shit. End of story.

[mchainmail]

Once every few years a discussion like this breaks lose. And most of the time it comes down to people who feel neglected for not being made an Adept (or in this case not receiving positive feedback on their posts).

Let me ask you this: Why care?

One of the major issues (correct me if I'm wrong) is that only adepts can award rep to other people. This is a good idea, yes. Except in some cases, Adepts aren't active in all forums. Take Lands, for example. I had to go back 11 pages, to February of this year to find a post by a member with sufficient Rep; a person who is no longer even active here. Is this fair compared to someone active in the TES thread, where Bryant is extremely active (not singling him out, he's just an iconic member)

[Atwa]

One of the major issues (correct me if I'm wrong) is that only adepts can award rep to other people. This is a good idea, yes. Except in some cases, Adepts aren't active in all forums. Take Lands, for example. I had to go back 11 pages, to February of this year to find a post by a member with sufficient Rep; a person who is no longer even active here. Is this fair compared to someone active in the TES thread, where Bryant is extremely active (not singling him out, he's just an iconic member)

Why does it matter as long as long as being an adept is an empty title? Why would you want rep? People will read your posts and decide for themselves if they value it. No need to attach some sort of rating on it.

As magic players (and older ones at that, as there aren't a lot of youngsters playing competive legacy), I can at least espect from my fellow players to think independantly I hope. I stand by my point, rating people (with or without any attached title) only leads to lazy thinking.

[pippo84]

From my point of view if you follow the forum and read posts you will see who's really worth listening to and who is just "mediocre" (but everyone can have good ideas!).

The places where you see it more are on the "Deck" threads and on the format/article discussion. If you play a deck and want some feedback you will automatically see who understands something and who doesn't.

Rep points could be a good thing, but as I said previously reading posts is better to make your own idea.

[Jander78]

Leaving this open as this has been in discussion recently. Please read through this thread: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16125-[ANNOUNCEMENT]-User-Reputation] before repeating what has already been said and discussed when this system was implemented.

[Pastorofmuppets]

I got one negative rep from a post in Mish Mash.


1944 Auschwitz called, it wants its sense of humor back.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?16791-The-worst-band-you-ve-ever-heard-seen-sexed-whatever&p=435951#post435951
For that post.

[Peter_Rotten]

Sometimes, I almost think we should just use our real names. That says a lot.

But then the community could recognize a troll who got banned and is posting through an anonymizer to stir up trouble about almost-defunct systems that almost all members are pretty apathetic about.

[Michael Keller]

Once every few years a discussion like this breaks lose. And most of the time it comes down to people who feel neglected for not being made an Adept (or in this case not receiving positive feedback on their posts).

Let me ask you this: Why care?

The one thing about the Source I liked when I joined some years ago was the fact your posts didn't get rated. This way, even if some people disliked your ideas, you could still inspire some others who would still ready you, what wouldn't happen if your posts got a negative rating. Sometimes I feel these kind of things are used more like a popularity contest then a way to actually rate people's knowledge about the game.

Same thing applies for the Adept status, I simply see no need for it. Some people argue this is good so new people on the boards can easily recognize who is worth listening to. To me, this only seems to encourage lazy thinking. I know how the adept status came in place when the site was still young, however this system doesn't have any added benefit for the site. Things would be different if adepts had to do a monthly contribution to the site or something (write an article is something which comes to mind), but how things stand now, it's an empty title.

Now I don't really care about adepts or rating, both things never made me take anyone more serious or made me treat anyone different, but seeing this discussion comes up every 1-2 years, wouldn't it just make more sense to abolish the whole idea of ranking people?

I disagree with most of these points. I feel the Adept system has very little flaws and the moderators have done an outstanding job thoroughly explaining the procedures in becoming an Adept and losing that status. Allow me to explain:

On The Source, you have people who do have exceptional grammatical skills, a solid grasp on the format, and recognizable play skills amongst their peers. The Legacy community (as a whole) is comprised largely of well known players who have been active in the format for years and have contributed largely in the process of continuing the progress of the format. These people have been instrumental in spending countless hours sketching, testing, playing, etc. their ideas into oblivion, and they deserve the recognition among their peers for their outstanding contribution to the format.

On the flip-side, there are also individuals that maintain Adept status who do not contribute much at all. There can be a lot of reasons for this: Personal issues, lack of time and energy, no access to a computer, whatever. Any way you look at it, these people maintain their status because their peers should look at them with the desire to learn and appreciate what they've been able (and trying to do) for everyone else. Everyone has their flaws, but that should not ever disqualify them for what they've done for the past, present, and future of this format. There are a lot of people (believe it or not) that actually do care about the game and this specific format of play.

A lot of people used to get upset and angry that they believed the Adept system was flawed due in large part to the proximity of the players who maintained that status (Northeast players, for example). Adepts should not be judged where they are from, but what they can give us all in return for their recognition as being leaders of thought. Any player can learn how to play the game at its most basic, fundamental level, but it is the Adepts who take the game a little more seriously and contribute more to the format than what was expected of them as a member of The Source. Don't get me wrong: There are plenty of intelligent, articulate, and well-spoken individuals on here who are not Adepts, and they are recognized in their own unique way.

People in the end want to stand out and get their fifteen minutes of fame. But only the people who have worked so hard and so diligently on bettering themselves as not only players but leaders of men deserve to hold the title of "Adept". After all, it is a system of class recognition at its most basic level.

[Sims]

Just for the record so that people don't have to weed through the other thread on the Rep system. Aggro_Zombies can vote up and down on people because he's gotten enough +1's to have reached "has a grasp on the format" status. Most everyone else's rep reads "is here to learn and help others learn." You can hover your mouse over your rep to see this.

That said. Who cares... Next to nobody actually uses the Rep system, myself included, as I'm far too lazy. I am fairly sure most of the other adepts fall into that category as well. We'll +1 posts that are truly good posts, solid grasp on theory and explaining what they are trying to say, thought provoking, etc.. But even then sometimes I feel rather lazy and don't want to press the rating button.

[sunshine]

That said. Who cares... Next to nobody actually uses the Rep system, myself included, as I'm far too lazy. I am fairly sure most of the other adepts fall into that category as well. We'll +1 posts that are truly good posts, solid grasp on theory and explaining what they are trying to say, thought provoking, etc.. But even then sometimes I feel rather lazy and don't want to press the rating button.

I think I might care (more?) if the system was actually maintained and meaningful - where meaningful is predicated on maintained (and if it actually is actively maintained now maybe that process should be more transparent?). The fact that people who have the ability to vote by and large don't care enough to do so, and by the nature of the system have no real motivation to care, combined with the "ironic abuse" that the system does get (scroll up to see Killing Joke's rating as a prime exaple - no offense meant to Killing Joke btw) just devalues the whole thing in my eyes.

Having a group of Adepts is a good and worthwhile idea in theory, and I don't know what the best way to implement it would be, but it seems like the current system is not really doing the job.

[Anusien]

If large number of adepts don't even care enough to give out rep, then I'd say the system is a failure as implemented.

And looking at the reputation I've gotten, it's far more for being funny/sarcastic than being insightful.


Maybe instead of having adepts have to go find good posts, users could recommend them. Sort of an inverse "Report to moderator".

[SpikeyMikey]

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I think I'm the person the system was designed for. Sure, a lot of people don't care, but I do. When the rating system first went up, it pushed me to improve my post quality and spend more time thinking about what I said before I said it. Maybe it's because I'm highly competitive, maybe it's because I like the praise, I don't know. But I know it had an impact on my posting mentality. I haven't seen a change one way or another since May, so it's kind of wearing off, but I still try and be articulate and thoughtful so that maybe I can get more points. Does it mean anything? Probably not, but then again, neither does a T8 at a GP. After you add up expenses and time spent testing and everything, you're losing money and wasting time. It's just a function of how competitive you are and how much you enjoy the success. I don't have any cards anymore; the game got too expensive for me. I still enjoy the deep mental aspect of the game, but my testing now is all with friends on MWS. So any competition or challenge I'm going to get now is here on the Source and any rewards I get come from the same.

[Pulp_Fiction]

I always thought the rep thing was worthless. 1/2 the people don't know it exists, and I can't imagine how many actually pay attention to it. The way I look at it, if you have been coming to this site for a few months and reading through some of the threads on a semi-regular basis u can very easily tell who is an idiot and who is worth listening too.

[Forbiddian]

Yeah, I think the system has failed.

All the +rep I've gotten was for cracking jokes about retarded people, and all the -rep I've gotten was for cracking jokes about retarded people (I have a couple posts that got both thumbs'd up and thumbs'd down by different people). Oh, and once someone just gave me a bunch of points for a QFT post I don't get it, it certainly doesn't in any way motivate me to improve my post quality, and I don't think anybody is really using it anymore.

For like the first week people used it, but now meh.