Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 326

Thread: The Adept System (SB)

  1. #61
    Arbitrary Wielder of Justice

    Join Date

    Oct 2003
    Posts

    3,195

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Mods don't really count as Adepts; I've made like three strategy posts in the last year.

    edit:

    There should be a small group of adepts who see the adept status as duty not as privilege.
    There is no duty. The title is recognition that you are good at communicating coherently, and that your ideas are worth listening to.
    When in doubt, mumble.

    When in trouble, delegate.

  2. #62
    Runs on caffeine
    ACME_Myst's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2006
    Posts

    163

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    I have an idea, somewhat similiar to the Slashdot suggestion, but on a more profitable level for the entire community. I'm not going to mix in the discussion of whether or not Adept status is a big circle jerk or not.

    Step 1: Wipe all the adepts. Might not be fair, but hey, you have to start somewhere.

    Step 2: Open up a new forum, open for any user to post in. However, only users who aspire to get adept status should open new threads here. They should write an article on either specific (existing, proven) decks, matchups, or format strategy in general (NOT new decks. This should not become a new N&D). Any user with a postcount higher than X, or with an account older than Y (to prevent creating new accounts just for voting) can then rate this article with either +1 or -1. Each user should obviously be able to vote only once (the Poll system could be used to implement this, though I'm not sure if you can disable Guests accounts from voting on it), though discussion on the article should be carried out as normal. Once the rating hits a certain threshold (say, +50 or +100), the poster gets Adept status.

    The benefits of this system:

    - Users get voted in based on their understanding of the format, and their ability to transfer this understanding onto others by way of posting.

    - The "friends club" part is mostly eliminated, though of course you could still get all your buddies to +1 your article. The threshold should be set high enough to offset this.

    - Even if a user doesn't get adept status, they still provided the community with a (hopefully) good and useful article.

    - The community is responsible for voting in Adepts, while giving aspiring Adepts the ability to show off their format understanding when they would not normally be noticed by the community as a whole because of low postcount / whatever.

    Downsides of the system:

    - It could take quite some time to reach the threshold for adept status. Maybe this could be offset by forcing the existing adepts to rate any new article. Just make sure the required threshold is higher than the number of adepts.

    - It doesn't reflect playskill as much as it does format understanding, though a matchup analysis could also show that off.

  3. #63
    Curmudgeon
    SpatulaOfTheAges's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2004
    Location

    Brussels
    Posts

    2,938

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by Atwa View Post
    I do like the idea of Spat, were the adepts/mods could make a monthy overview of what happened in the format. Highlighting promesing decks, general news, that kind of thing. However, I do not see the need for another group of people for that purpose, I think we have enough adepts as it is who can contribute to such a thing.
    That's the problem; if it's left up to the adepts it will encourage a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the way things are set up. I actually agree with quite a few people that there are some regular posters who are better than some adepts.

    The point of my proposed system is to solve two recent complaints;

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

    B) The Adept system is status quo encouraging and pointless.

    Why not use the latter to fix the former? The problem with using adepts themselves, however, is that many of us just aren't active enough. There are plenty of way more active posters who are regular posters.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBA
    I like the idea too, although every week, even every two weeks is too often. We don't want an excitement burnout like the Adept Q&A section, or to a lesser extent like we see with the Magic Hall of Famers thing. Every two months sounds like plenty of time to see what the new decks are doing and give them a fair run as the "hot new thing".
    I don't feel like "Super-adepts" would get burned out that quickly. Ideally, we wouldn't have people asking to do it without a high level of interest in the format. Updating the "Buzz" forum every month, though, instead of biweekly, may work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguine_Voyeur
    I think a 'super-adept' system and anything else creating more social classes will only lead to more conflict. The more parts there are, the more friction there is.
    I don't think you can take generalized principles and apply them absolutely.

    Adepts really don't do anything, and are in pretty much indefinitely.

    Super-adepts would have a job on the site, and are in for a limited time.

    A scheduled election may promote 'campaigning' and quality posts only around election time. Another problem is that I just used the phrase 'election time' describing a possible scenario. Not that I'm discounting forum politics, I just don't want to have to worry about elections in my hobbies.
    Announcer: Hi there Billy!
    Billy: Gosh, hi there Mr. Announcer.
    A: What seems to have gotten you so down, Billy?
    B: Gee whiz, Mr. Announcer, I wish I were a Super-adept!
    A:*condescending chuckle* But it's easy, Billy!
    First, submit your intent to run to a moderator, via the private messaging application.
    Second, the moderators will have a cut off date. At that date, they'll determine how many nominees they have.
    If they have more than 25 nominees, they can use the adept forum as a sounding board to find out which posters may not be active enough, or may be causing problems.
    B: Rabble-rousers? Like Mr. Cavius?
    A: That's right Billy!
    Third, once the list is at a managable level, a poll is created in the "Buzz" forum with all the nominees names, and hidden results.
    All users have two weeks to vote.
    At the end of that time, the results will be tallied by the judges;

    The highest scoring Canadian
    The highest scoring West Coaster
    The highest scoring East Coaster
    The highest scoring German
    The highest scoring other European

    And the other 5 highest scores will all be Super-Adepts for the next cycle!
    B: Gee willickers, that does sound swell!

    A: It sure does, Billy.

    It sure does.
    Early one morning while making the round,
    I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
    I went right home and I went to bed,
    I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.

  4. #64

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by SpatulaOfTheAges View Post
    I don't think you can take generalized principles and apply them absolutely.
    But it does apply. Even in the current system there is dissension. There were more example in this thread, but all I can find is this.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpatulaOfTheAges View Post
    ...story...
    What are you trying to prove? You just described the set up of an election, you didn't refute my points or make any new ones.

  5. #65
    The King of Lockjobs
    Peter_Rotten's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2003
    Location

    Middle of Nowhere, NY
    Posts

    1,214

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Part I

    1. Creating more standards or responsibilities for Adepts is a bad idea if there are no concrete benefits. Imagine, like GetSick facetiously suggested, Adepts earned paychecks? Or even player rewards? We could then create a ton of enforcible standards. But this is not the case; let's move to #2.

    2. I personally don't think creating responsibilities for a hobby such as discussing and researching a card game is a good idea.

    Q: Do you know when I hate this site the most?
    A: At the end of the month.
    Q: Why?
    A: I somehow have become the DTBF update person, which is a responsibility. (Modding seems more like a hobby although I'm avoiding checking the Admin page to check on all the new sign-ups to make sure that they are not Chinese Bots. Meh, I should do that now. BRB.)

    When we originally created the Adept Q&A forum, we planned to have that as an Adept responsibility. Eventually, we realized that this was a poor idea and now have more of a "answer it if you want to" attitude about that forum. Who wants to deal with a responsibility when checking a hobby site?

    3. Adepthood seems to mean more to people who don't have it. I recall how much one current Adept wanted the title and after having it for awhile, I'm not so sure he sees it as a big deal anymore.

    Part I summation: Creating more standards and responsibilities for Adepthood is probably a bad idea.


    Part II

    I like Spat's idea of having a monthly buzz topic for 10 people to discuss. I also like having those 10 people be a selection of members and adepts from many locations. Making a specific quota from each region may be more work than the mod staff is willing to do. It may be easier to make sure we don't get a clump of members from the same area.

    However. I have some concerns. First, I am worried about (returning to I.2) creating something that members are supposed to do. Will they be active? Will they want to do it? Second, I am worried creating more hurt feelings. I can imagine some posts already - "OH! Why didn't I get chosen? BooHoo, you elite jerks." No matter the measures we take, we will get complaints about the selection process.

    I am NOT in favor of a new level of user. The idea can be implemented without creating a Super-Di-Duper Leetxor Adept level member and without a new user group or color.

    Lastly, before seriously discussing this (creating a new forum, new user permissions, and new Mod responsibilities) with the Mods, I'd like to see some examples of possible discussion topics.

    Part II summation: Spat's idea is interesting but I want some examples of topics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavius The Great View Post
    Germany seems to find me influential. Have you ever Googled "Nourishing Lich"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihil Credo View Post
    No, Peter_Rotten, you are the problems.

  6. #66
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,503

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    There's a hole somewhere in your logic that's circular (I guess that's like, a wormhole or something), P_R. You suggest that some Adepts wouldnt want the extra responsibility of actually voting on and doing something once or twice a month, or even more rarely than that, and use this as a reason to suggest that it's a bad idea. But if the fundamental question is; Should the Adepts exist? Then the answer must involve a reason. If we create a reason for the Adepts to exist, and it must inherently involve performing a task, that seems like a greater reason to cut out the Adepts not up to the task than to cut out the task. Should someone who only wants to check the forums casually have or want or need any special posting status? It seems like a more fluid election system to Adeptship should inherently weed out those who don't want to deal with said bullshit. And if people miss the private forum that much, just create an MMM sub-forum.


    Also, does everyone agree that the Adept Q&A has kind of run it's course?
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  7. #67
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2007
    Location

    San Diego
    Posts

    1,461

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    There's a hole somewhere in your logic that's circular (I guess that's like, a wormhole or something), P_R. You suggest that some Adepts wouldnt want the extra responsibility of actually voting on and doing something once or twice a month, or even more rarely than that, and use this as a reason to suggest that it's a bad idea. But if the fundamental question is; Should the Adepts exist? Then the answer must involve a reason. If we create a reason for the Adepts to exist, and it must inherently involve performing a task, that seems like a greater reason to cut out the Adepts not up to the task than to cut out the task. Should someone who only wants to check the forums casually have or want or need any special posting status? It seems like a more fluid election system to Adeptship should inherently weed out those who don't want to deal with said bullshit. And if people miss the private forum that much, just create an MMM sub-forum.



    Also, does everyone agree that the Adept Q&A has kind of run it's course?


    I am not used to agreeing with you this often, but as it stands, IBA (can I call you jack?) is right.

  8. #68

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    I'm not.... opposed to Spatula's suggestion. (time out - I'd like Matt to know that I know that he's Matt Elgin, not some dude named Spatula. I freaking hate people addressing other's handles rather than the person themselves. So, for the sake of preliterate, I'm addressing Matt as Spatula, so folks aren't like, "MattH? Did he even post in this thread?" - time in)

    But I think that the quotas are a little off. Like, are there more than like six Canadian users? I can think of Dave Caplan (goobalfish or some such) and B.C. (whom I may have simply confused with Brittish Colombia). Then that guy in Montreal who I always consider PMing when I drive up to go clubbing. But never do.

    That said, I have no objection to the system as it is outlined now.
    The E.P.I.C. Syndicate: I mean, if they play a lullaby for babies they should at least play the Monster Mash when somebody dies.
    Quote Originally Posted by herbig View Post
    If I see you in NY/I'll send you an invite/You gon' need a pass/That's the code that we live by.

  9. #69
    Curmudgeon
    SpatulaOfTheAges's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2004
    Location

    Brussels
    Posts

    2,938

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguine Voyeur View Post
    But it does apply. Even in the current system there is dissension. There were more example in this thread, but all I can find is this.
    But this is the ultimate populist position. Anyone can run for this spot, anyone can vote, no one can serve consecutive posts, and it's the ultimate platform for people with new ideas to promote those ideas.

    What are you trying to prove? You just described the set up of an election, you didn't refute my points or make any new ones.
    I'm merely trying to outline the general way it would work.


    More after I get back from lunch.
    Early one morning while making the round,
    I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
    I went right home and I went to bed,
    I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.

  10. #70
    Merkwürdigeliebe
    jazzykat's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2006
    Location

    Vienna, AT
    Posts

    913

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Overall I think adept status is irrelevant. I have limited time so, I do tend to look at an adept's posts more carefully. That said allowing a troll to be an adept ruins some of MY filtering (as if anyone cares).

    I think people tend to look up to/put more weight into what an adept writes/says and given that a great deal of them are from the East coast their experiences are with that meta (the most advanced meta?) in mind. In that way some of their experiences have to be taken with a grain of salt because I usually play landstill, threshhold, ITF, Stax, etc. and have almost never faced a source deck in an Albuquerque tournament. Strangely enough, if you have a deck tuned super tight to squeeze out a slightly better matchup vs. the Tier 1 decks, and the randoms tend to gun for you, your chances are not as good as you would initially think even though in a vacuum your deck is 10x better than theirs.

    My suggestion is to examine the "mission statement" of the source and perhaps adjust it to say what you want it to say. Then select new adepts that will help you achieve it.

  11. #71
    monkey
    xsockmonkeyx's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2006
    Location

    Los Angeles
    Posts

    1,659

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    So me and Pinder were talking about this a few months ago and we concluded (I think) that the whole status thing on this site is counterproductive. In the end i think we decided that it would be best to get rid of the adept thingy, as its kind of an ad hominem (I know this probably isnt the correct term and IBA can nail me for this). I also thought it would be a good idea to get rid of post counts which are even worse at sending the wrong message to newer members.

    Basically I want people to actually read the words you type to evaluate your argument instead of some other arbitrary implied authority.

    Whatever system gets chosen is not that big a deal to me personally, but for the sake of the site things do need to change. I always hated the idea of adepts and never wanted to be one ever. Luckily for me I suck at magic so this is largely a non-issue. But whatever you choose make sure that Volt is an adept. The site looks really bad if youre leaving him out IMO.

    ~monkey

    EDIT: and Roodmistah. If Dreadstill sucks then he's been mopping up the East Coast with a "crap" deck and making you all look bad.
    info.ninja

  12. #72
    The King of Lockjobs
    Peter_Rotten's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2003
    Location

    Middle of Nowhere, NY
    Posts

    1,214

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    There's a hole somewhere in your logic that's circular (I guess that's like, a wormhole or something), P_R. You suggest that some Adepts wouldnt want the extra responsibility of actually voting on and doing something once or twice a month, or even more rarely than that, and use this as a reason to suggest that it's a bad idea. But if the fundamental question is; Should the Adepts exist? Then the answer must involve a reason. If we create a reason for the Adepts to exist, and it must inherently involve performing a task, that seems like a greater reason to cut out the Adepts not up to the task than to cut out the task. Should someone who only wants to check the forums casually have or want or need any special posting status? It seems like a more fluid election system to Adeptship should inherently weed out those who don't want to deal with said bullshit. And if people miss the private forum that much, just create an MMM sub-forum.
    Hmmm... I don't see it as circular logic. Can we look at the Adept status as a recognition of the previously mentioned qualities like good posting habits? I think so. Does (or should) Adept status come with other responsibilities besides the obviously inherent ones like continuing said posting habits? Creating an artificial responsibility for a member group might even be seen as more of a punishment than a reward.

    Right now, I think we are discussing the value of the Adept status (duh!). If we review what some people have said, it seems that Adept status can mean the following to various ppl:

    1. Nothing
    2. Helps ppl scan to more "valuable" posts.
    3. When some site issues rise, the Mods have a valuable and smaller group of ppl to spring board ideas.
    4. Elite boys club where a select few can touch their pee-pees without others interfering.
    5. Recognition of being an excellent and productive member of this site

    I am against creating a task for the Adepts. (Maybe we're playing with words here but "task" implies an unwanted or boring job to do). Creating a "task" failed with the Q&A. That forum runs better as a voluntary thing.

    Directly about Spat's idea vs. creating more responsibility: As I see it, his idea is not fully formed. I'm not sure what - if any - responsibility will or should be created for the Adepts. I would assume that responding to a buzz topic would be voluntary. However, I think we're putting the cart before the horse here and have two separate discussions going: one about Adept status and one about a brand new idea. Although the first may, in the end, influence a bit of the second, I don't see them intertwined as of yet.

    I was specifically worried about the responsibility of discussing the Buzz Topic, not the responsibility of voting on the participants. I'm not worried about the voting part because I'm not sure if that is how I would like to implement the idea. I want to see if we really want a Buzz Topic and then we can decide the specifics. Essentially, I'm saying that we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

    Also, does everyone agree that the Adept Q&A has kind of run it's course?
    I like the slower method of proposing new questions. Personally, I also like having a sort of reference section where people are not debating each other but simply posting their ideas and leaving them at that. We do need more good questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavius The Great View Post
    Germany seems to find me influential. Have you ever Googled "Nourishing Lich"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihil Credo View Post
    No, Peter_Rotten, you are the problems.

  13. #73
    Samurais suck
    Volt's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2006
    Location

    Portland, OR
    Posts

    1,884

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    .
    Last edited by Volt; 10-12-2008 at 12:34 AM.
    Team Info-Ninja: Shhh... We don't exist.

  14. #74
    Runs on caffeine
    ACME_Myst's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2006
    Posts

    163

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    As to what Adepts really 'are', and should do, in your (P_R) list I see point 2 and 5 (maybe 3) being the relevant ones. I couldn't give a shit about point 4, since people with huge egos will display those on the main site anyway.

    Given those are the qualities you're looking for in Adepts, would you say those qualities really fluctuate over an X periode of time, which would be reflected by an election round run every so often? Also, should activity on the site really be taken into account here?

    If some known mastermind strategist makes a post, I don't care if he has posted in the past half year or not. 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.

    Also, I know most of the current Adepts by their activity in the MM forum, NOT from the activity and knowledge they displayed in strategy or deck threads. Isn't there something wrong with that?

  15. #75
    Site Contributor
    Lego's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2004
    Location

    Jamaica Plain, MA
    Posts

    2,016

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by xsockmonkeyx View Post
    I also thought it would be a good idea to get rid of post counts which are even worse at sending the wrong message to newer members.
    I'm not sure how viable this is, as I've never run a message board system before, but I have to whole heartedly agree with this. Axe post counts! I mean, I like to think that I've made some pretty good posts, and I'm generally an overall good poster, but the first ~year of my posts are complete and utter shite (pronounce it like you're Brad Pitt from Snatch) yet I have a higher post count than someone like, say, Volt. It just seems like a way to make people feel bad about their input into the sight, or a way to encourage people to post, which I find often leads to useless things being said just to add to one's count. Personally, I don't think it encourages anything we want to encourage.

  16. #76
    Curmudgeon
    SpatulaOfTheAges's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2004
    Location

    Brussels
    Posts

    2,938

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten View Post
    Directly about Spat's idea vs. creating more responsibility: As I see it, his idea is not fully formed. I'm not sure what - if any - responsibility will or should be created for the Adepts. I would assume that responding to a buzz topic would be voluntary. However, I think we're putting the cart before the horse here and have two separate discussions going: one about Adept status and one about a brand new idea. Although the first may, in the end, influence a bit of the second, I don't see them intertwined as of yet.

    I was specifically worried about the responsibility of discussing the Buzz Topic, not the responsibility of voting on the participants. I'm not worried about the voting part because I'm not sure if that is how I would like to implement the idea. I want to see if we really want a Buzz Topic and then we can decide the specifics. Essentially, I'm saying that we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
    Oh, I see. I think there may be some confusion.

    My idea for a "Buzz" forum wouldn't be to create new threads. It would be to highlight(either by linking or moving) a set of all ready existant threads that the popularly elected "Super-Adepts" would select. Their job would simply be to keep that Buzz forum relevant.

    On that note, thinking about how often the forum should be updated, I don't think a predetermined timeframe would actually work. Every two weeks won't work when things are slow between major tournaments, and every month may completely miss a hugely relevant format discussion that occurs in the middle of that timeframe. So I think that there would have to be a seperate "Super-Adept Lounge" where the Super Adepts would discuss potential threads to move in, so that the forum can be made up to date with any ongoing discussion.

    Second, I am worried creating more hurt feelings. I can imagine some posts already - "OH! Why didn't I get chosen? BooHoo, you elite jerks." No matter the measures we take, we will get complaints about the selection process.
    I thought about this too, but realistically, if the position changes regularly, and there are no consecutive terms, it would be hard to accuse the Source of encouraging further elitism through it. I believe that everyone would be able to get a fair shake under my system, adept or not.

    I am NOT in favor of a new level of user. The idea can be implemented without creating a Super-Di-Duper Leetxor Adept level member and without a new user group or color.
    I think that's fine. With the position changing so often, it'd probably be a pain to constantly change anyway.

    But they will need a seperate forum, similiar to the "Team forums", for discussion of possible additions and changes to the "Buzz" forum.

    Lastly, before seriously discussing this (creating a new forum, new user permissions, and new Mod responsibilities) with the Mods, I'd like to see some examples of possible discussion topics.
    Let's say;

    [Brainstorming]Balancing Act
    [Casual Deck] Aggro Elves
    [Primer] Legacy Control Slaver
    [Deck] Solidarity
    [Article] Unlocking Legacy- Tom Brady, Ice Cauldron, and Lifeforce

    As random examples. Some new and developmental decks the SA's feel show promise, an old deck that they think shows new promise in a new metagame/with the release of new cards, an article they feel has some important insights, and a brainstorming thread about an under-utilized card.


    Edit: I can all ready see some people pointing out that this may turn into people with pet decks using the forum as a way to plug those decks. I don't consider that a bad thing. I don't see 10 people agreeing to keep one person's pet deck in the forum for more than a few weeks, so I think it will be a managable way to get fresh ideas into the spotlight.

    Edit2: On a related note, although the forum would be there to highlight existant threads, you would expect the SAs to naturally lean towards threads in which they are active. I consider this a good thing, as it would demonstrate and hopefully encourage leadership in terms of post quality in those threads.

    Edit3: I think that predetermined safeguards are necessary in terms of SA membership. Otherwise making decisions about who's in and who's out in terms of "preventing regional clustering" will be open to charges of favoritism. Also, I really don't think it's that complicated. You find the two Europeans with the highest scores, you let them in. Repeat for 1 Canuck, 1 West, 1 East, then the top 5 remaining. It's not that hard.
    Early one morning while making the round,
    I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down;
    I went right home and I went to bed,
    I stuck that lovin' .44 beneath my head.

  17. #77
    */*
    Nightmare's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2004
    Location

    Syracuse, NY
    Posts

    207,137

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Fuck that commie no-post-count shit. I want more site statistical info, not less. I've got to get my ego stroking in somewhere!

  18. #78
    Samurais suck
    Volt's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2006
    Location

    Portland, OR
    Posts

    1,884

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    .
    Last edited by Volt; 10-12-2008 at 12:34 AM.
    Team Info-Ninja: Shhh... We don't exist.

  19. #79
    The King of Lockjobs
    Peter_Rotten's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2003
    Location

    Middle of Nowhere, NY
    Posts

    1,214

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    /tangent about post count. Does everyone know that Admins can change the post count of any member? They really don't mean much at all when I can change them on a whim.

    I totally misunderstood Spat's idea at first but like it better now as a forum with 5 (4, 6, 7 whatever) threads. If anything, it will be an interesting experiment. To continue playing with the idea, I have some more questions.

    1. Will these be NEW threads discussing existing topics? For example, in the Buzz Forum, we start a new elf thread for the 10 Buzzers to discuss. Moving the existing thread would remove it from general discussion which I doubt is a good idea.

    2. Should we have 10 people elected who then choose 5 threads OR should we choose 5 threads and then choose 10 people for those threads?

    2a. Who will do all that choosing? Should Adepts vote on 5 threads and the general user-base choose the Buzz members? Or what?

    3. I think that a "soft" month should be a good time frame. This way, if discussion is dead we can end the "month" early or if discussion is hot, then we can extend the month? Thoughts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavius The Great View Post
    Germany seems to find me influential. Have you ever Googled "Nourishing Lich"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihil Credo View Post
    No, Peter_Rotten, you are the problems.

  20. #80
    Merkwürdigeliebe
    jazzykat's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2006
    Location

    Vienna, AT
    Posts

    913

    Re: The Adept System (SB)

    Quote Originally Posted by Volt View Post
    I sort of agree about the post count thing, although I think the notion that one's post count correlates to their expertise is much less prevalent here than on some other Legacy sites.

    Maybe the post counts could just be "hidden," accessible only by viewing a member's profile?
    Agreed. I think that it would reduce what for some of us is certainly an involuntary prejudice vs. the guy with 50 posts who is an absolute ninja.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)