Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Rack
Roten, this is for you, the whole post count thing was just mentioned as another way of distinguishing a person from another, I figured that if we did away with it it might be better. You obviously read a lot deeper into than that. And the whole making my post count high and yours really low is pretty cute but hasn't really proved anything. It is true that people will look through threads and only look at those with 1,000 plus posts and respond to those. You can believe me or not, but it's true.
Prove it.
Quote:
You can go ahead and quote saying that the whole post count discussion is dead too because that'll make you look cool.
Looking cool is my primary concern. So here we go:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter_Rotten
- Post count issue = whining. And now it's pretty much a dead issue since since I really scoured the Admin page and finally figured out HOW to do it but Zilla is the only Admin with the ability/permssion to do it..
Changing the post count hasn't proven anything yet. It's only been a few hours. We probably have to give it a month or two to complete our little experiment.
Quote:
Oh and not being recognized as much as an adept, that's not bullshit.
Prove it. Prove that people ignore lesser post counts in an area that matters.* And, if so, prove that this is an important issue and is detrimental to the board. Also, what do you want to be recognized for and where have you been ignored? When has your opinion been obviously dismissed based solely on the basis of you being a regular member - which probably 96% of the site is? Do you really think that 96% of the site's membership is being ignored because about 3% has its name a different color?
Quote:
Never in my post was I whining or giving a bad attitutde.
It came across that way.
*Is there anyone besides Bryant? And I contend that he is talking out of his ass - no offense Bryant but if what you said is true,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bryant Cook
I actually don't bother reading most posts from people with low post counts. I'd just rather read people who are established as intelligent. It saves time and I believe someone with a post count of 2,000+ probably has a good idea of what they're talking about. Theres the occasional Cavius, but people know whos a giant ass.
then you read posts from maybe 16 people on this site and put more stock in what LegoArmyMan says than Anwar or BigBear.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Maybe it would placate people to actually know the individual reasons why individual members have or have not been promoted to adepts, so that they could stop using the phantom of elitism as an argument?
Or would that just make things worse?
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SpatulaOfTheAges
Maybe it would placate people to actually know the individual reasons why individual members have or have not been promoted to adepts, so that they could stop using the phantom of elitism as an argument?
Or would that just make things worse?
When in doubt, complicate matters.
And sorry, I can't possibly divide this thead into the two separate issues. Feel free to c&p you original post and start a new thread.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SpatulaOfTheAges
Maybe it would placate people to actually know the individual reasons why individual members have or have not been promoted to adepts, so that they could stop using the phantom of elitism as an argument?
Or would that just make things worse?
Reasons why those who are adepts became adepts would be good, but reasons why anybody wasn't promoted would just continue to fuel this bitch fest going on.
EDIT: With more than say 20 seconds of thought into it, though...I'm beginning to reconsider. I'm not even sure showing why some became adepts is going to make a difference. Others who want to become adepts but cannot understand what they are failing at would see it as even more proof of elitism.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
There are a list of qualifications that would entitle some folks to be upgraded to Adept status. Even if you meet each requirement, there's no guarantee, which seems to be blatantly flawed because ultimately it's an "if I like this guy or not"-fest. It's like winning the Popular Vote and losing the Electoral College. Seriously.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
But how would the people complaining propose the issue be resolved?
I mean, doesn't it strike people that while some are complaining of regional bias, others, who play in the same metagame as the largest group of adepts, are complaining about being slighted?
Re: The Adept System (SB)
If someone wants to become an Adept, I think it should be by invite only. It's the selection process that seems to be unknown to most.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A Legend
See this is an unfortunate misnomer:
I have not one time...ONE TIME...ever talked about how my team rocks (maybe what, once?). If you look at these forums, you'll see a RETARDED amount of EPIC talk talk talk. One whisper about how I think any member of our team deserves an upgrade of status because of the things we've done and the things we do and we get this?
You're a cool guy too, bro, but seriously: You need to take a step back pause for a moment. Put yourself in my place. When you work as fucking hard as we do to try and 180 yourself, do it, and ask for a little something more, you get pissed on like this. Everyone does respect our team, that quite literally has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with it, because that time is past. But we look at this is an opportunity to have an important say in things around here and we just see it as unfortunate.
Please get the "Mike Keller Pissy Syndrome" thoughts out of your head. I work extremely hard and have every right to want more for myself, my team, and the community.
Dude, I've made it extraordinarily clear to most of the members on EPIC that I think they're trash-talking is fucking absurd and unnecessary.
It wasn't necessarily that I was going on about how often you've said "your team rocks" (which was paraphrasing anyway), but that you come off poorly when you do try to. After all, that was the point of that post that I quoted, right? You wouldn't point out accomplishments without wanting recognition for said accomplishments, right?
Although, I will admit, what do you mean "180 yourself"? That's confusing.
Also, I'm confused as to what you think the Adepts do around here? Or is it that you're proposing that one of you deserves Moderator status because of how well you do in tournaments? I'm a little unclear on the matter.
I was never accusing you of being "pissy", I just want this point to be made as it's my point of view.
@Matt: Damn straight. No Jack Elgin makes for a fucking great team. Also, Hellz YES!
@The Rack: Out of curiosity, you're on the same team as The Freak Accident, right? You play out in San Diego, right? It's unfortunate that you guys live across the country because I think it would be great to play against some of you, but I do have some questions.
1) You guys are awfully vehement about Adept status and who is qualified and who is not.
2) You seem awfully angry about what appears (to you) to be unfair discrimination. Is that correct?
3) What decks do you guys play out there? I'm just kind of curious because a while back, I perused some of the decks proposed by members of your team (or at least I believe they are on your team, if you could clarify who is and who is not that would make it easier for future questions), and found them to be playing rather poorly. Without sounding like a douchebag (seriously, I'm not trying to), why do you guys play decks like that? Is it a metagame thing? What?
4) I guess this would be more directed to The Freak Accident, but what event did you win (or place) that got you Pro Points? Do any of the other members of your team have Pro Points?
I'm not trying to be a dickhead about it, but I'm just genuinely curious, and I think others may be as well (hence why this isn't a PM). If you don't want to answer, you don't have to (obviously), although if you could tell me you're not answering (and a reason if you don't mind), then that could help the discussion move right along.
If we can find out why some members are so angry about various things, then maybe we (the Source as a whole) can fix them.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
I don't have to. Let's say you are looking in the Ichorid thread. You have JoeSchmoe with ten posts on the source, joined a week ago, and you have IBA both posting in that thread. Joe has some oddball suggestion never been tested suggestion and it doesn't see the ligh of day. But if IBA(or any other Adept, IBA is just cooler) post that same thing 10 pages later they are suddenly revered as the Ichorid redesigner.
Can you honestly say that you look at JoeSchmoe's post with the same credibility as IBA's? WHy? because of his join date? Post count? Name Color?
Quote:
Changing the post count hasn't proven anything yet. It's only been a few hours. We probably have to give it a month or two to complete our little experiment.
It won't prove anything because you're the administrator, yeah, real subtle.
The only way to test it is to have an Adept that knows his shit but has ben sorta forgotten, change his name, strip his color, and make him join today, with 5 posts. That would be how I test it.
Quote:
*Is there anyone besides Bryant?
Frogboy's last post said he did.
EDIT I think I had 570 posts before I made my 10,000,000th post
Re: The Adept System (SB)
I'm starting to side with both Nightmare and P_R about this whole conspiracy of not naming names. If there's people out there right now that the masses consider Adept worthy that aren't, start actually throwing the names out. At the very least there's recognition of what the masses are actually getting pissed at, and they can take each of those cases into consideration or at least give some insight as to why they don't believe the same. Constantly putting out the idea that there's people that belong yet not having the balls to back up said statements just makes people bitching on here sound like whiny emo kids.
And yes, I did say whine. Suck it up and deal with it, bitches.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A Legend
It's the selection process that seems to be unknown to most.
There's no reason for that to be true, it's spelled out in the the rules thread;
Quote:
A discussion thread will be created in the Legacy Adept Lounge, which will be left open for a period of five (5) calendar days. On the fifth day, the thread will be closed, votes will be tallied and if the Legacy Adept candidate receives a majority vote, then he/she will be nominated to Legacy Adept. A 50/50 vote is not a majority vote. If the candidate fails to gain a majority vote, promotion at that time will be denied and the same candidate cannot be nominated for promotion for a period of not less than two (2) months after the poll close date.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
I think if someone has a fair, honest case for themselves and presents it in a professional way to the Adepts, then they be eligible for an upgrade of status.
Basically, the way it feels now, is that becoming an Adept is more of a "job acquisition" than a "title". Perhaps what we need are more Adepts. There are an absurd amount of decent players and interesting writers on this site and to not include them in more important things because of the "exclusivity" of this group seems unfair. People want to get involved. That's it.
EDIT: Sanguine, I searched for that and couldn't find it. Thank you.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
I think the Adept system is flawed because it confuses two completely unrelated skill-sets: the ability to run a discussion board and the ability to win Legacy tournaments.
If the mods and admins feel that it's useful for them to have a small group of people with which to discuss important issues about the site and its community (such as the implementation of the ideas in this thread, or the details of the 5th anniversary tournament), that's great. I have no objection to that.
If they also want to recognize a group of people who are particularly good at Legacy, whose Magic-related posts are reasonable and well-informed -- well, I do have objections to that, but I'll get to them in a moment.
My main point is that those are two completely separate ideas. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to address them both with the same title. What do you do with someone who fits into one group but not the other? You can't assume that someone who has good ideas for the community is also a good player/deckbuilder/strategist, nor can you assume that a good player will be the right person to turn to for site issues.
But I would also argue that the second group should not exist at all. I don't think the existence of such a group does anything positive for the community, and after reading this thread, I feel that it does actually have negative effects. One would be the negative perception of it by some members, which is pretty apparent at this point. Another is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nihil Credo
I know that when I started lurking this site (sometime in 2006) the "colour guide" was quite helpful in letting me figure out which of two well-spoken people was more likely to be talking out of his ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AngryTroll
As stated, the simple color code should make things slightly easier on new members and draws attention to posts by people that are supposed to know what they are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jazzykat
I have limited time so, I do tend to look at an adept's posts more carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ACME_Myst
I want to be able to see a different colored name, think 'this guy knows what he's talking about', and read that post carefully.
Not only do I disagree that this is a good thing about having Adepts, I think it's a very bad thing. We are actually encouraging people to be lazy (even just a little) and not read both sides of a discussion as carefully as they should. Adepts are wrong an awful lot of the time, and deciding whether or not to pay attention to someone based on someone else's judgment of them is a bad idea. I think we want to encourage people to think for themselves and pay attention to content. If an individual member makes an educated decision about who makes interesting posts and who doesn't, that's fine, but I don't think we should try to make those decisions for them.
But maybe good strategists really are right enough of the time that it's a good thing to encourage a slight bias towards the posts of the Adepts. However, I would argue that we can't rely on a group of Adepts to be that good. Adepts are ultimately chosen by the mod staff, and I'd like to again point out that there is no relationship between the ability to run a forum and the ability to succeed in Legacy. Several mods don't play much competitive Legacy. That doesn't hurt their ability to be mods at all, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that everyone with the ability to be a good mod is an authority on who is good at Legacy. A good mod shouldn't really have to be good at Legacy, but the Adept system runs into trouble if they aren't. I'm not trying to insult the mods, but the implied connection between being an authority on The Source and being an authority on who's good and who's bad has always seemed tenuous to me.
So to summarize, a small group which which the mods could discuss community issues sounds fine, but I don't like the elitism in our current system. I think it creates conflict and encourages lazy thinking.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter_Rotten
*Is there anyone besides Bryant? And I contend that he is talking out of his ass - no offense Bryant but if what you said is true, then you read posts from maybe 16 people on this site and put more stock in what LegoArmyMan says than Anwar or BigBear.
I wasn't being serious, I should've hinted at that more.
Also, Hollywood, not to get into it, but chill out dude. You've been knocking on EPIC quite a bit lately. We've done a lot to help you and your team.
@ Dave - Most of our shit talk isn't serious, you out of anyone should know this, you talk more about yourself more than anyone I know.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Yeah, but I've stopped. I still know that it's a joke, but after a while it just kind of ran out. That's why I stopped, it's just not as funny anymore.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
It is true that people will look through threads and only look at those with 1,000 plus posts and respond to those. You can believe me or not, but it's true.
Well, like, I'm a lot more interested in Bardo's opinion of something in Threshold or Vorosh than I am Joe Random.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bryant Cook
I wasn't being serious, I should've hinted at that more.
Also, Hollywood, not to get into it, but chill out dude. You've been knocking on EPIC quite a bit lately. We've done a lot to help you and your team.
@ Dave - Most of our shit talk isn't serious, you out of anyone should know this, you talk more about yourself more than anyone I know.
Bryant, you know I love you. You bastard. We all hang out twice a week at C.Z. and play cards. And I have not been knocking on EPIC lately. If I have, please show me what I've said and I'll resolve the issue. But I honestly can't say that I have because I've been preoccupied the last month with NAVY things and haven't had any time to make fun of you, which I love :cool: (and will miss).
EDIT: @Dave: I went from a 1660 rating to an 1837 rating, in Syracuse no-less. I increased my post count by 1,000 posts in a matter of months - most of which I try to maintain as useful knowledge and insight. I aligned myself with a group of guys dedicated to winning. People called me a quitter, even Nightmare. But I stayed in. I've top 8'ed/4'ed at quite a few major Northeastern Legacy venues this calendar year, more than all other years I've played combined.
All I'm saying is that I sucked. Big time. Horribly. Terribly. Abysmally. And I took it to heart and changed my lifestyle and playing habits. And it has brought be to great heights. It just stings deep when people don't think you can change, you earn it, then don't get it. It's one of those things that isn't a big deal at all, but leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you know?
The point is this: If you start off bad, get totally better at your game and place high and change your posting habits, then don't become an Adept, then what open chance does this leave newer opportunists?
Re: The Adept System (SB)
deep6er:
1) I'm not really that angry over the whole Adept thing I just want things to be fair for everyone. I may come off asbeing angry due to the fact that I've been arguing with PR but it is a discussion anyhow.
2) See 1) but in addition we aren't very angry because we've accepted it, it's just that it doesn't matter how many top 1s we get we aren't recognized as being good deckbuilders or a good team.
3) Some of the decks we make are truly horrible and just worst versions of other decks because we don't have all the right cards, however TFA the freakaccidnt, has gotten first in the past 3 tournies only to lose his streak to my reappearance there last week. We play Funkt decks, nuff said, feel free to PM if you are more interested.
4) I'm honestly not sure if we have any Pro points does PT Hollywood Legacy side event give points? If so I can check. Me and TFA went up there and I got 19th I think and he got 10th out of about 100? I don't really remember out of how many.
Oh and no offense taken, I know you're just being inquisitve and that's fine. Feel free to PM me whenever.
Re: The Adept System (SB)
OMG guys. This n00b Peter Rotten is a MODERATOR and he only has 38 posts!!!! That should give us all high hopes, right?
Fuck,,
Shut Up
I hate you all.
<3///
Re: The Adept System (SB)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Rack
deep6er:
1) I'm not really that angry over the whole Adept thing I just want things to be fair for everyone. I may come off asbeing angry due to the fact that I've been arguing with PR but it is a discussion anyhow.
2) See 1) but in addition we aren't very angry because we've accepted it, it's just that it doesn't matter how many top 1s we get we aren't recognized as being good deckbuilders or a good team.
3) Some of the decks we make are truly horrible and just worst versions of other decks because we don't have all the right cards, however TFA the freakaccidnt, has gotten first in the past 3 tournies only to lose his streak to my reappearance there last week. We play Funkt decks, nuff said, feel free to PM if you are more interested.
4) I'm honestly not sure if we have any Pro points does PT Hollywood Legacy side event give points? If so I can check. Me and TFA went up there and I got 19th I think and he got 10th out of about 100? I don't really remember out of how many.
Oh and no offense taken, I know you're just being inquisitve and that's fine. Feel free to PM me whenever.
You only get pro points by playing in PTs or T32ing GPs.
If your strategy posts are worth reading, they get read. High post counts imply that your strat posts are worth reading; it usually means the person is pretty familiar with Legacy and has been battling for a while and I'm probably more inclined to try maverick ideas when someone who I know is decent suggested it. This is not to say that folks with lower post counts are ignored, but their posts are often not as useful.
Think about it; low post counts imply primarily lurking and asking a few questions. High post counts imply answering those questions. Answers are way more interesting to read.
(lots of exceptions, sure)
