The Adept System (SB)

No jokez, y'all.


So, who's happy with the current system? I know that quite a lot of people get the feeling that the Adeptship is largely a best-friends-club for East Coasters; they make up an overwhelming majority of the membership, it seems, while the West Coast, the Midlands, Europe, etc., are underrepresented. I know the problem is particularly bad because even East Coasters think that there's too many East Coasters.

Here's an idea I've been pondering. Suppose we set up the Adept system like Adepts did something really relevant (what relevant things they should do could come later- I think going back to a voting system on DTB could be advantageous, for instance), and we simply run it as an election. Each person casts a certain number of votes for the people they think are best fitted to adeptship, and the top 15 or 21 or some odd number for tie-breaker purposes become Adepts. Obviously this is, by definition, a popularity contest, but I think that popularity on the Source is based largely on two qualities that are deeply relevant to what we want from Adepts anyway (eloquence and knowledge of the format). I think at any rate, this fights the natural tendency we have going where Adeptship is determined largely by East Coasters, and thus tends to include more East Coasters that those deciding on membership are more familiar with.

Now, obviously this is actually up to the Admins, not members, but I am curious to find out what people think. Are people happy with the system as currently set up, or would a special effort to balance the Adeptship more geographically be worthwhile?

Or you could just eliminate the entire system, because I have never seen it serve any purpose aside from different colored names and inflating egos.

But that's just me, I suppose.

I don't think there is really a system at all to be honest. A few certain guys get to talk about things in the format and I'll speak for a lot of people and say that not many read the Adept Q&A because it is very empowering of the "adepts" to ask questions that only they can answer. I think it's silly. I would much rather have another forum where topics are picked by all the members and then discussed with very tight moderation so everyone can focus on the topic at hand. I do believe that a voting system wouldn't work very well because naturally everyone is gonna vote for whoever they hang out with on Sundays and nothing will really get done. I don't want to badger I just think that if you are labeled an adept you should probably spend more time in the Format Discussion and New and Developmental forums than the Mish Mash, ya know what I mean? I do think we should try something new and that's not up to me or you but the admins so we'll see what's going on. I like your ideas IBA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAardvark

Or you could just eliminate the entire system, because I have never seen it serve any purpose aside from different colored names and inflating egos.

But that's just me, I suppose.

---

But I like my ego being inflated...


This is somewhat true, but I think there are some issues where membership input could be useful. Towards this end, it would seem desirable to have a group that can be relied on to have the interests of the membership and perhaps better judgment, such as for determing DTBs, perhaps dealing with suggestions to the alteration of the site at large in some way, the currently-entropied Ask-an-Adept section, etc...

Also, while I think many people don't care, a number of people clearly do consider the Adept system to be an encouragement for them to try and increase the quaity of their posting. While I'm not sure if the importance placed on Adeptship isn't entirely misguided, I don't know if this is an incentive that should be dismissed lightly.

Honestly, the adept system seems to provide nothing but a private message board for friends and a forum where they can provide answers to questions that I can bitch about when I go to tournaments. As I already have a message board for my friends (and AIM) and I rather like talking about some of the opinions I see in the ask the adepts forum it can just stay as-is. It's not like when an adept top8s a tournament he receives anything extra (besides unicorn showers, but I don't think I'd want those anyway).

Okay. I can see already that I was wrong about something. The first discussion, perhaps, should be what function Adepts even serve, if any. Is it a friendly circle jerk? And if it is, should it be anything else? Is it useful as a mostly meaningless pat on the back and forum to play MMM, encouraging people to post better and earn said status, or should it be done away with if there's not to be a functional use to such a pool of "elite" members?

I like the concept of the adepts and the current system. I've seen it awarded to people who, in my opinion, deserve it. Nihil, Bryant, Zach, Pinder, and IBA are all people who I've seen insight in even before I was aware of the adept system. If all it does is serve as a reward, then that's fine too. Those people deserve the reward.

Some thoughts of mine:

I do think there should be a little more in terms of voting on the Decks to Beat, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rack

not many read the Adept Q&A because it is very empowering of the "adepts" to ask questions that only they can answer.

---

If you'd like to see a particular question get answered, PM Bardo/PR/Nightmare, etc, and I'm sure they'd be happy to post it as the question of the week (assuming it isn't a question like "When do you think Tarmogoyf will get banned?").



Something else to note, there was quite a bit of behind the scenes work for the upcoming 5th Anniversary tournament on the part of the Adepts. If nothing else, I'm glad to have been able to support the 5th Anniversary tournament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

This is somewhat true, but I think there are some issues where membership input could be useful. Towards this end, it would seem desirable to have a group that can be relied on to have the interests of the membership and perhaps better judgment, such as for determing DTBs, perhaps dealing with suggestions to the alteration of the site at large in some way, the currently-entropied Ask-an-Adept section, etc...

Also, while I think many people don't care, a number of people clearly do consider the Adept system to be an encouragement for them to try and increase the quaity of their posting. While I'm not sure if the importance placed on Adeptship isn't entirely misguided, I don't know if this is an incentive that should be dismissed lightly.

---

This is what it was always supposed to be, Jack, and I'm fairly sure you are aware of that. It was always meant to be a group of people who were deemed to have a better hold on the format than the population at large that could give a helping hand or fresh pair of eyes on development, provide input to the mod staff about changes to the site, and share thoughts and tech about the format amongst themselves and the rest of the userbase. This was the reason I know a lot of people cleaned their acts up, so they could strive towards Adept-hood. As of late, it has grown a bit decadent. Adepts thoughts don't always carry the weight that they should in a discussion, but that's partially because the adept-membership has been growing a lot as of late. Regardless of if it was for performance in tournaments, exemplary posting and format contributions, or providing us with hot chicks... I think that the roles of the Adepts and what they are supposed to provide the site have been lost and the title doesn't really mean much... Except the adept lounge. That place can be funnier than Mish-Mash when it gets going.

I'd love to see a wiping of the Adept slate clean, followed by a whole-scale and entirely unbiased, objective vote of the sites userbase as to whom shows exemplary knowledge of Legacy theory, at least a passable knowledge of deckbuilding (lets face it, even the best strategists and theorists don't always have the deckbuilding know-how), some playskill (perhaps the hardest unit to measure), and be able and willing to spend time in Established and N&D giving opinions on decks that show potential. The Adepts currently are shrouded in such apathy, for the most part, that it's more entertaning to sit in MM or on the Adept boards playing MMM because of the insanely high Signal : Noise ratio in the actual format boards. If some of the moderation was tightened, and the above could happen objectively, I think the site would be right back on track to staying in the forefront of Legacy innovation and information while giving the sense of meaning Adepthood has back, and thus giving people something to strive for.

Now, I know that is not exactly the most plausible thing to do... but I do feel strongly that Adepthood doesn't really mean dick outside of a forum that a lot of people don't read because they don't give two shits about Adepts opinions on if Dreadstill is good or not, and the Adept Lounge. That's it.

I say have it done by tournament success, and rating... The most consistently well-placing individuals deserve to be recognized as what they are, superior.


It is unfortunate for those who have no local/big legacy events to fall on, but no system is perfect, and people without tournament experience will generally know less than others with tournament experience.


I think this is the most non-biased way to get the best of the best into the Adept status.

Basically, each adept needs to keep a specific win ratio at tournaments, have a quota of tournaments played a month (at least 4 IMO), and of coarse win/place (although winning should be more of a factor here) a majority of those said tournaments.



This is my opinion, and it would take a little bit more work, but I think it is the best possible system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

I say have it done by tournament success, and rating... The most consistently well-placing individuals deserve to be recognized as what they are, superior.

---

The problem is that being an Adept here also entails active and worthwhile membership. If you're a great player, then good-for-you. We can make a thread that says you're great. However, what does that do for this site and the format? An Adept, under your suggestion, could T8 100 tournies and not make a post. How does this help the format or site?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten

The problem is that being an Adept here also entails active and worthwhile membership. If you're a great player, then good-for-you. We can make a thread that says you're great. However, what does that do for this site and the format? An Adept, under your suggestion, could T8 100 tournies and not make a post. How does this help the format or site?

---

Another problem with this (at least ratings wise) is that many tournaments, at least the ones I've gone to in the San Francisco Bay Area, aren't sanctioned. I don't know how much of a problem that is elsewhere, but areas where there's only a small but tightly knit Legacy community may have trouble sanctioning their events.

And I say that we have it based on the number of F's I's and N's in each user's name.

Clearly tournament success is one guage. But not the only one. I only mention the following as an example to make my case, freakaccident. If you make top8 every week in your meta, it does not change the fact that you hadn't figured out how or why priority functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

It all comes down to which of you speaks up first, if you declare attackers and he proceeds to state he is activating his deed, you cannot do anything about it, if you just straight up say, Krosan grip, tap your lands and then target deed, then you get to proceed to beat face.

---

Of course, understanding of the rules also is not a complete measure either. So we would need something flexible.

EDIT:And also, I believe that the position should be a revolving one. We would need new blood constantly to balance the jaded opinions that naturally come with the position over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

I say have it done by tournament success, and rating... The most consistently well-placing individuals deserve to be recognized as what they are, superior.


It is unfortunate for those who have no local/big legacy events to fall on, but no system is perfect, and people without tournament experience will generally know less than others with tournament experience.


I think this is the most non-biased way to get the best of the best into the Adept status.

Basically, each adept needs to keep a specific win ratio at tournaments, have a quota of tournaments played a month (at least 4 IMO), and of coarse win/place (although winning should be more of a factor here) a majority of those said tournaments.



This is my opinion, and it would take a little bit more work, but I think it is the best possible system.

---

I really don't like that system. It is completely unfair to people who have made a significant impact on the format and certainly deserve their adept status, but don't get to go to many tournaments (e.g. Eldariel). Also, tournament success isn't necessarily a measure of qualification. Someone can be very good with one deck, and consistantly place with it, but that doesn't mean they have any insight into actually theory/deckbuilding/etc.

What was wrong with the simple once-a-year vote idea again?

The best players usually know what they are doing, and it can simply give people a basis to go off of...


I would gladly post up results and answer questions given to me from other source members curious about my constant success.


Understanding why and how people are able to consistently do well in this format will eventually get everyone to a level playing field...


I am not saying my idea is right or not, but it is an idea.

At this point, that is what we need, ideas.


EDIT:

Quote:

---

What was wrong with the simple once-a-year vote idea again?

---

Nothing at all, just giving other alternatives to think about.


EDIT #2:

Quote:

---

I really don't like that system. It is completely unfair to people who have made a significant impact on the format and certainly deserve their adept status, but don't get to go to many tournaments (e.g. Eldariel). Also, tournament success isn't necessarily a measure of qualification. Someone can be very good with one deck, and consistantly place with it, but that doesn't mean they have any insight into actually theory/deckbuilding/etc.

---

Your point is very valid, but I think everyone agrees that a new system is in order...

Also, have a specialized expert on a specific archtype isn't necessarily a bad thing (although I never play the same thing twice in a row).

I totally see where you are coming from though, it would be unfair to a degree, as it would leave some people out of the runnings, but doesn't this happen with the current system already?


EDIT #3:

Quote:

---

The problem is that being an Adept here also entails active and worthwhile membership. If you're a great player, then good-for-you. We can make a thread that says you're great. However, what does that do for this site and the format? An Adept, under your suggestion, could T8 100 tournies and not make a post. How does this help the format or site?

---

You could set a quota, and have interactive threads kind of like the adept QnA, except have the actual players ask the questions for adepts to answer openly.

This would ensure a good amount of posting, and essentially force interactivity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefreakaccident

At this point, that is what we need, ideas.

---

Why do we need ideas? Are you trying to say that there's something particularly wrong with the system? Too many adepts? Like 60% of them east-coasters? Or is the problem that you aren't an adept yourself?

Seriously, folks. If you want to be a candidate for Adeptship, clean up your posting, don't be an asshat, and put up results (this step not necessarily needed). Also, not pissing off adepts, admins, or mods helps too (as these are the folks who nominate and vote you in).

In short, if you want to be an adept, behave like one. And re-read those rules in Bardo's rules thread for the site. There have been a couple recent changes.

Personally, I'd love to get rid of the titles and change all user names to dark blue, even the mods/admins. I think it would be a worthwhile experiment: let the strength of every poster's idea be judged on its own merit and not subtely influenced by being teal, dark blue, red or whatever color the mod names are (purple/brown = burple?). I would totally be down for that.

(Note that I don't think permissions should change, mods could still close/delete threads, warn users, etc., adepts could still post in the LA Lounge, but you couldn't rest on your laurels, so to speak, at least publicly.)

I was about to propose this idea to the other mods last night, then sorta forgot. What does everyone else think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

But I like my ego being inflated...

---

For the record, Jack, I was not referring to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Okay. I can see already that I was wrong about something. The first discussion, perhaps, should be what function Adepts even serve, if any. Is it a friendly circle jerk? And if it is, should it be anything else? Is it useful as a mostly meaningless pat on the back and forum to play MMM, encouraging people to post better and earn said status, or should it be done away with if there's not to be a functional use to such a pool of "elite" members?

---

As I said, I have never seen the Adept system as serving any real purpose. It's a bunch of people who, in theory, are supposed to know more about the format than anyone else. That screams of being completely self-serving and unnecessary to me (among other things), and it sertainly seems like a circle-jerk. So, I don't see the point of having such a system, personally.

I do want to say that I have no real problems with ~90% of the Adepts, just a very select few, so my opposition has nothing to do with that.

EDIT: Agreed with Bardo, since I was going to suggest the same thing, but he posted it right before I did.

Adepts are basically whoever has been here the longest and biggest postwhores, basically anyone with a high post count or buddies of the mods...seems like a really dumb and pointless system to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zach Tartell

Seriously, folks. If you want to be a candidate for Adeptship, clean up your posting, don't be an asshat, and put up results (this step not necessarily needed). Also, not pissing off adepts, admins, or mods helps too (as these are the folks who nominate and vote you in).

---

With all due respect to the other Adepts, I am more than certain I fulfilled my candidacy for an Adept status as it pertains to each and every one of the guidelines. I mean, there are some folks on here (no names) who are Adepts that use poor grammar and the occasional unnecessary tone and yet they seem to hold in high regard their status above the community.

After careful consideration, however, I thought to myself that I don't need a highlighted name and access to a particular forum to prove what kind of individual I am anymore. I paid my dues, improved well over 100% of my game and posting frequency and it still wasn't enough. So for those looking to become an Adept, it really isn't worth your time.

Everyone is your peer and everyone is your critic. That's the irony.

Politics.

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. Not saying the then-Adept was always right, but I definitely noticed a correlation.

If I could implement one change on MTGTS, it would be experimenting with a Slashdot-like popular moderation guide (each single post can be voted +1 or -1 by each member). Starting out with Mish-Mash for testing purposes, then if it works try it in Community / Format Development, and if it really looks good extend it to the deck threads.

Downsides: can promote groupthink, probably unsupported by board software.
Upsides: massively reduces mods/admins workload, can promote good posting in a much smoother way than yearly elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazyroundman

0 idea. Explain?

---

Slashdot kind of rating system... Think along the lines of Youtube or Thottbot. You can rate the post +1 or -1 depending upon the content of the post. After a post hits a certain negative level, it either hides itself or gets deleted. It gives the userbase a way of self-modding the forums to lighten the workload of the admins and would provide another method of basing adepthood based on overall post ratings.

Doesn't stop some asshats who have too much free time and friends from mass -1'ing posts that are made just because people don't like the idea contained within said post.


Oh, and that when he first got here he noticed there was a correlation between people with Light Blue names, dark blue names, and the "speaking out of ass level. In general, the speaking out of ass level probably declined in the LB posts. Not always, I'm sure, but in general. But I'm prety sure you were asking more about the slashdot styled system.

For me, I think the status of Adept in a deck discussion adds nothing, since there are some that are simply too arrogant to acknowledge errors and things alike without getting morally shaken and starting a flame war. Reading and ignoring is the best way to deal with bad posters, while the inverse of that is the best way to know when good content might be there. If it's good to keep the Adept Louge, then do as Bardo suggested and color everyone equally. It does much more for the forums than the actual system.


EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CorruptedAngel

Doesn't stop some asshats who have too much free time and friends from mass -1'ing posts that are made just because people don't like the idea contained within said post.

---

I don't know if the forum could support this, but it might be worthwhile to set a range for the ratio of bad and good ratings given. That range is to be noted as good rating behavior. This forces rating good posts as good while also rating bad posts as bad, instead of doing only one.

This thread is simply going to go downhill from here, as it seems that two of the more chill adepts (wasted/Tartelli) are getting quite upset.

I understand why you guys are upset, but you should look at it from other's perspectives as well.

Posting things like:

Quote:

---

The people whining could create a worthwhile deck or post in threads that are relevant, with some intelligence and understanding. Maybe then, just maybe, you too can be a cool kid and have you're name in Light Blue.

---

Makes it seem like you feel your posts are better than others, which feeds that feeling others are having, and that is that you look down on non-adept posters.


I am not trying to start a war, just point out the obvious, as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaiminho

For me, I think the status of Adept in a deck discussion adds nothing, since there are some that are simply too arrogant to acknowledge errors and things alike without getting morally shaken and starting a flame war. Reading and ignoring is the best way to deal with bad posters, while the inverse of that is the best way to know when good content might be there. If it's good to keep the Adept Louge, then do as Bardo suggested and color everyone equally. It does much more for the forums than the actual system.

---

There seems to be no benefit from being an Adept on The Source than a "standard poster". Everyone shares their thoughts and creativity in the same forums, it's just that some have more difficulty posting logically and properly in the more developed forums. I've seen decks in the Developmental Forum just vanish into obscurity from the lack of support by those who should be willing to assist others that don't have the experience or posting quality they do.

I'm not saying Adepts should be "teachers", but I once heard that with great power comes great responsibility. And if you want to get your title crayoned in sky-blue, you should be willing to help others on a more educational level than useless rambling about how "cool" it is to chill on the 28th-floor penthouse.

This is sorta going no place. I'll clean this up a bit while my guild is busy wiping in Hyjal.

The point system seemed to be the best way, to me. I think it should rely on 50% on how good your tournament results are you put up and the other half on how active and helpful you are on the forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Legend

I'm not saying Adepts should be "teachers", but I once heard that with great power comes great responsibility. And if you want to get your title crayoned in sky-blue, you should be willing to help others on a more educational level than useless rambling about how "cool" it is to chill on the 28th-floor penthouse.

---

Please, dear God, stop quoting movies in attempt to get a point across. Especially those who are so cliche it's almost embarassing to read lol.

Quote:

---

Slashdot kind of rating system... Think along the lines of Youtube or Thottbot. You can rate the post +1 or -1 depending upon the content of the post. After a post hits a certain negative level, it either hides itself or gets deleted. It gives the userbase a way of self-modding the forums to lighten the workload of the admins and would provide another method of basing adepthood based on overall post ratings.

Doesn't stop some asshats who have too much free time and friends from mass -1'ing posts that are made just because people don't like the idea contained within said post.

---

This is the exact reason why we won't implement this. You and I (and everyone else for that matter) know there are people here that would do this. A certain handful of posters have quite the tendency to act rather childish and bitch and piss and moan, and would go all FAP FAP FAP over than -1 button.

Quote:

---

Personally, I'd love to get rid of the titles and change all user names to dark blue, even the mods/admins. I think it would be a worthwhile experiment: let the strength of every poster's idea be judged on its own merit and not subtely influenced by being teal, dark blue, red or whatever color the mod names are (purple/brown = burple?). I would totally be down for that.

---

Although I don't have anything against this, I am against changing staff member colors. Not only does that make me feel less badass without red, but for the sake of newer members and such, keeping staff colors at least lets them address authority if there is a problem or concern.



Anyway, I wish this kind of crap just stopped. As the mod staff and adepts know (or most adepts at least), I haven't, until very recently, taken interest in adept politics. Although it shows a level of prominence in the community, most people put that teal title on a pedestal to the point where people complain and whine about it, for all sorts of reasons. If it weren't for the fact that adepts [i]do[i] have a say, although not very large, in the maintenance of this site and future events, I'd say to hell with them, simply because it'd alleviate the bitching from members. That's another thing about it. Most members who complain about it want the title as a means of showing themselves off on the site, and don't entirely understand the position. To a lot of you who piss and moan about not being an adept, at least question yourself and think if you're even the kind of person that the mod staff is going to look at and say, "Hey, we place a high value on your opinion, and would be very interested to know your stance on X." If you aren't someone who is mature enough to handle site politics, then stop complaining. If you believe you are, and you still haven't been upgraded, then odds are, you really aren't.


/end rant.

I like the idea of a feedback system, but it's too easy to exploit by ganging up on people. Nothing should support team on team conflict.

Tourney results shouldn't be that significant, but shouldn't be ignored. You can be a good player but a bad deck builder. This forum is primary about deck building. You can pick up Bletcher and ravage an unprepared meta with little effort.

What does it mean if some1's name is in pink?(I believe there is only 1(Slay))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HammafistRoob

What does it mean if some1's name is in pink?(I believe there is only 1(Slay))

---

It means that it's Slay. That's it.

Jack is there a reason you hate me?

There is no where for this thread to go but into a giant hole of flames, bitching and moaning.

I am going to be out of town and thus the thread will probably be locked and deleted before I get a chance to read the really juicy stuff that will show up around page 4 or 5.

On the actual topic,
Being an adept is awesome.
Every month we get free vouchers for the local hookers.
It also looks impressive on my resume.

I rarely look at these boards, primarily because I do not have much time to myself... but What is the point of all this ranking stuff, all it seems to be doing is making people bitter and angry at one another.


Even the adepts themselves, who are the ones that are supposed to be held to a higher standard, are getting caught in this seemingly unnecessary and senseless squabbling.

I keep seeing the adepts and the mods (please do not pimp slap me, I am just making an observation) saying that people should stop bitching because they do not have the right to do so, and it seems like the rest are just getting pissed at those comments themselves.

Eydunno.

I could care less about having some sort of awesome higher rank than everybody else, I just do not think it should make people feel superior to others here.


Hell, I may just stop going and would expect others to quit going if they do not like what they are seeing (which seems to be an ever-increasing number).

I never saw much point in it, but then again, I can't see these adept forums either. They may have some merit to them, but for the most part I can't picture too much that isn't posted few and far between in the normal sections anyway.

I wasn't real impressed with the adept Q&A though. I stopped reading it after a while. It didn't offer much of anything past what you could get from other sections. It's also annoying when you can't offer a suggestion. I'll stick to the main parts.

I guess it's an ok system for friends, but meh. It's not based on ideas or placings so I guess I don't see what purpose it's serving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahcmai

I never saw much point in it, but then again, I can't see these adept forums either. They may have some merit to them, but for the most part I can't picture too much that isn't posted few and far between in the normal sections anyway.

---

We should probably change the name of the Legacy Adept forum to the "Mental Magic and Place to Bitch about the Site" forum, though the same could be said about the Mod Forum, minus the Mental Magic thing.

Personally, I don't see much value in the Adept system as it is. If you're around long enough, you realize the colors don't mean a damn thing--there are some Adepts whose posts I consistently gloss over; while I make an effort to read the posts of several regular users. Titles are kinda meaningless at best, and misleading at worst.

Though, I've done a pretty good job of nominating and promoting most of my favorite posters (that I think add value to the site, not friends), just for convenience. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bardo

If you're around long enough, you realize the colors don't mean a damn thing--there are some Adepts whose posts I consistently gloss over; while I make an effort to read the posts of several regular users.

---

/looks at name, sees it in teal.

Yeah, tell me about it. I've been in this colorcode for how long?

Seriously though, I think that the adept system SHOULD be something. That the adepts should be someone on a higher stnadard of whom people look up to and whose opinions actually matter to the userbase at large.

I don't think I fit that standard, but I also don't think that half the people that are adepts fit that standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

What was wrong with the simple once-a-year vote idea again?

---

I don't really see an issue with it.

I agree that adeptship should have a greater weight to it in terms of responsibility and such.
Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned nametags. Those were sweet.

I don't really care either way (as in changing the Adept system, or not), my only problem is that I couldn't post in the Adept Forum thread, "Favorite Casual Format." This is clearly not an adept only topic, so as long as there is a clear distinction about what does or does not belong in that forum, I have no qualms. That being said, I think a clear distinction needs to be made and maintained.

.