Also, maybe I'm biased because I'm one of those people, but does anyone else notice that besides the current 'known' posters and Adepts, everyone else in this thread gets blatantly ignored?
Printable View
Also, maybe I'm biased because I'm one of those people, but does anyone else notice that besides the current 'known' posters and Adepts, everyone else in this thread gets blatantly ignored?
I am not ignoring you, Myst. But I think it is funny that it is *certainly* occurring in the thread that is meant to address that very thing.
Yay attention!
/emo
But yeah, what you said
I do have one issue with the current Adept guidlines. It rewards people who write, not those who do.
Tournament success is understandibly difficult to quantify for Legacy due to the multiple previously listed reasons. But what about those who develop their decks for tournaments?
I think it is an awful standard that those who create and/or develop decks that shape this format on their own are excluded. Especially when these lists are discussed in great detail on this site. If a player decides for whatever reason that they do not wish to share in a deck's development until it is deemed completed, or wants to keep secret certain differences from the norm, I think they should be accorded the same (if not more) deference to those who post along with thirty others to come to the same, or worse, conclusions. This is assuming of course that their lists, reasoning, and conclusions are posted on The Source by them at the appropriate time.
No matter how many times you post a day, or how many on any particular subject, people will always want proof. This is always in the form of positive results, sometimes in testing, but mostly in tournaments. I think those who take the initiative to take an exisiting deck to it's best form, or create new versions of decks (no deck is completely new) that become format standards should not be excluded because they did not slather The Source with random thoughts before doing so.
Forgive the potential foolishness of the question, but...
Parcher, if there is a person who is doing some sort of work outside the boundaries of this site with a deck he isn't talking about, what would we be discussing with that person?
It reminds me of my cousin's girlfriend. She is apparently hot stuff and really good at pleasing him. But he won't tell us her name. And we aren't allowed to meet her.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightmare
I addressed this earlier.Quote:
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.
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.
4 times a year for 10 members. Perhaps every 4 months if that's too much work.Quote:
3) We establish BUZZards. Admins are now required to change permissions for these members, and for the ones who are now relinquishing the title.
I really don't think it'd take forever. You'd have to establish some rules. For example;Quote:
4) BUZZards vote on which threads go to the BUZZ forum. This takes forever, especially if NoVA gets a vote.
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.
I addressed this also.Quote:
God forbid they have any self-interest in a particular thread, and they just nominate their own pet deck to improve discussion on it.
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.
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.Quote:
Mods/Admins are required to dig up the threads and move them, and move the old threads back to whence they came.
Well, to be honest, the reward for demoting inactive adepts is virtually nil.Quote:
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.
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.
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'd also like to re-emphasize that I expect the BUZZards to be a mix of adepts and highly active regular members. Adepthood, and even tournament success, I think mean less for the position than sustained format interest.
The chief role of the adepts would be to help the mods sort through times when there are simply too many people who want the job. The mods can't keep track of everyone and every thread in extraordinary detail, so they'd need help figuring out who's serious enough about the format to warrant the position.
We actually have multiple adepts with low post counts, so I can only assume you're referencing people that don't post at all in which case- Hi? Discussion forum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Not every big name economics professor is a billionaire stud. As evidenced by the fact that they're professors, for instance.
My thoughts are as follows;Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthAlly
1) Randomness is not the same as fairness.
2) Post quantity is not post quality.
3) This seems really needlessly complex and high maintenance anyway.
Also, Athens is easily the most over-rated ancient Greek city-state.
Edit: For instance, check out Slivers kid at GenCon. I'm not going to knock the guy who won on playskill, even if the field at GenCon is high mass, low content. However, did anyone think, at least based on quotations, he provided any kind of eloquent reasoning on why to play Counter-Slivers?*
*Aside form the 40 duals thing. I know someone's going to say it, so I'll get it out there. But would that actually make an even decent post in the Meathooks thread?
Spat - did you get a chance to look at my modified version of your idea?
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...7&postcount=97
Thoughts?
I'm not Spat, but I would suggest [Spotlight] as the tag put before decks that get stickied if we do it this way. It's concise and immediately understandable and isn't some weird acronym.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten
So it would basically look like:
"[Spotlight] 5c Merfolk/Goblin Aggro Crusher Stompy"
Or something along those lines.
I'm also not Spat, and while I think spotlighting promising deck threads is a good idea, it doesn't address as many of the concerns presented in this thread as well as Spat's idea. The buzz concept has the benefit of quelling some of the issues - to the extent that they are issues - around the adept position by giving particularly knowledgeable or active basic members a chance to take a larger role in the development process.
Having interesting threads highlighted is a good idea; I don't usually read the strat forums because there's too much noise, and this would help.
Hank. Her name is Hank.Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverPetriDish
Start a whispering campaign and he'll either let you meet her or stop talking about her at all.
This is pretty much why I like the idea as well. It would serve two purposes:Quote:
Originally Posted by frogboy
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.
I believe Parcher was pointing out that the system rewards people that post a lot about a deck regardless of real merit. Where as someone that keeps their "tech" secret, wins with it and then comes to the source and talks about the logic of their choices and defends their choices is seen as less of an expert because they post less.Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverPetriDish
So we'll see Nourishing Lich get more focus directed at making it a DTB as a result of this idea?
I am incredibly excited about the idea of the developmental deck area getting some love.
Overall, as a newer member, I think the adepts do a good job. But I must admit, it took me a long, long time to figure out that they were actually titled people of the site and not just knowledgeable players.
This is exactly what I mean, but only in specific regards to Adept status. Doing so fills all of the requirements but one. Post count (I know you don't list it as such, but let's be honest). If the decisions made are all essentially correct regarding the deck, and you are able to intelligently explain and defend these choices, and have proven results from them, that alone should qualify. The fact that you didn't spend two months throwing ideas at the wall on site should be irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewokslayer
And for the record Jack, no one has been made an Adept with a low post count in almost two years. Ever since tournament success was removed from the guidelines. In fact, excepting maybe two, all of the Adepts from that time have had exactly the opposite. High count, with no discernable deck or tournament results. Outside of MWS that is.
It's like I can see into your soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parcher
Well, to be honest, it seemsQuote:
Originally Posted by P_R
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.