The Adept System (SB)

[Shriekmaw]

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.

I was going through this thread finally and just can't believe what I'm reading. Honestly, someone with a high post count is more creatible than someone that actually might be good at this game?

I know a lot of players that play legacy with low post counts, but that doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. I think the best way to be a creatible source is to look at tournament results.

Some people just post in order to brag about it or they state that they are right b/c they post more than another person. This is not a healthy way to grow the Legacy community.

The whole post count should be thrown out the window in my opinion.

[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..

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Speaking as an (semi)official Special Operations Psychological Warfare Specialist, I'm going to say that people make jokes, generally, because they think that the joke will be funny, and that they think that something is funny for pretty much only two reasons;

1) It's true.
2) It's the exact opposite of truth.

People want to tell the truth, either way. It's a deep-rooted desire. Maintaining a lie creates cognitive dissonance and makes people unhappy on some level. They are compelled to tell the truth. So in actual practice, most deception doesn't take the form of obfuscation, but of concealment and misdirection; liars tell the truth and then try to convince you not to pay attention to it. "It's just a joke" is a milder version of this; people are often more blunt and honest in their jokes than in casual conversation.

Also, WWII was started by a bologne sandwich, if anyone's interested in the story.

Although P_R has impressed me with his behavior a lot lately. He's not the same giant jerkface who banned me for two days.

Adam, sadly, has had his gentle spirit crushed by the weight of the world.


I'm not addressing the main point of the thread anymore because it's become boring, and convolutedly circular. We should go with my election idea.

[Whit3 Ghost]

You're lack of names is maddening. Which memebers/Adepts are you talking about? I look at that list and I'm not sure which Adepts were promoted in the past year! At what date was Tacosnape made an Adept? What date ObFreely? Spat? Freakish? What is the exact post count at which we judge a member worthy of Adepthood?

You points hold little weight without specifics.

I believe the second example is referring to Goobafish. I'm not so sure about the first, it might be Zach.

Anyway, the biggest problem I've seen here is what Parcher is getting at. People who believe that they are experts on a subject simply by posting in a thread a bunch of times. I believe it was around the time of Columbus when Paul Nicolo who T8ed the GP with UGR Threshold was met with heavy skepticism on the subject of his list because people didn't know who he was and had just recently registered.
Edit- Links are tech: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...518#post136518

[Peter_Rotten]

Ya know, I forgot that it was YOU that started this thread in the first place! I'm rethinking that two-day ban right now.

[Zach Tartell]

So, wait - is Daemon saying that I'm only teal because of post count? I don't understand.

[Parcher]

You're lack of names is maddening. Which memebers/Adepts are you talking about? I look at that list and I'm not sure which Adepts were promoted in the past year! At what date was Tacosnape made an Adept? What date ObFreely? Spat? Freakish? What is the exact post count at which we judge a member worthy of Adepthood?

You points hold little weight without specifics.

I guess that you concede my original point regarding work done off-site, or that you're ignoring it.

But in regards to names, are you being obtuse? It's quite easy for you to look up when people were promoted, I can do it. So I won't cop to that. And I'm not going to go into whom might have 3,000+ posts without any results to back up what they say. Again, easy to look up.

But as to recent and specific Adept changes? Zach had four Top 8's in the past year. But, he wasn't promoted a year ago when nominated. Instead it was very recently. The reasoning in the vote was that he was too new, and his countwas too low. Disregard if you will that over 90% of his current posts are in Mish-Mash.

The second person who was declined that I refer to is, I'm sure known to you, but you want names on this thread. Geoff Smelski.

[Peter_Rotten]

I guess that you concede my original point regarding work done off-site, or that you're ignoring it.

Nope - doing one thing at a time.

I But in regards to names, are you being obtuse? It's quite easy for you to look up when people were promoted, I can do it. So I won't cop to that. And I'm not going to go into whom might have 3,000+ posts without any results to back up what they say. Again, easy to look up.

So you'll make a ridiculous claim and then I have to do the leg-work for it? It doesn't work that way. If it will make you support your arguments, then let's say that I am very obtuse and I need it ALL spelled out for me.

Right now you have plenty of snide insinuations that you expect me to support.

But as to recent and specific Adept changes? Zach had four Top 8's in the past year. But, he wasn't promoted a year ago when nominated. Instead it was very recently. The reasoning in the vote was that he was too new, and his count was too low. Disregard if you will that over 90% of his current posts are in Mish-Mash.

First, I'd like to ask you how do you know anything about how and why Zach was or wasn't promoted.

The second person who was declined that I refer to is, I'm sure known to you, but you want names on this thread. Geoff Smelski.

And do you know why? His post count was too low. Sorry - I couldn't resist. I think you are attempting to return to the argument that great players should be adepts. But we need to keep in mind that that quality is likely the least important for Adepthood here. Why? Because it's a discussion forum where one's ability to intelligently discuss Legacy is rewarded with access to The Great Lounge, the ability to post in the Q&A, and a teal name-tag.

[Finn]

Parcher, I could probably paint a pretty convincing picture of why tournament success, taken alone, is a pretty poor indicator of value to this forum. I am hoping that you will concede that point. If that is the case, can't we just chalk Zach's promotion delay to the adepts doing what comes natural? They waited to see if he would be an asset to the site. If that is so we can move on to P_R's agenda for the topic.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The dissemination of information is a crucial problem that affects all levels and layers of reality, I'm afraid. It's for this reason that we generally employ Occam's Razor; to shave away all unnecessary assumptions and go with the simplest answer that works.

There could, even now, be a howling wave of death riding towards our Solar System from a Gamma Ray Burst a few light years away. But we have no way of knowing this or acting upon it until it reaches us and wipes out three quarters of life on the planet. What then to do? I guess we have to function as we weren't all about to be sent to the Thunder Dome.

Someone's off-site contributions are, at best, hard to verify. Usually this is impossible, at least with the level of effort most people on this site are willing to do. And the reason that they're hard to verify is fairly simple; it doesn't affect the discussion forum. In fact, playskill barely does. What does matter on the discussion forum that is the Source is strategic and analytical depth and knowledge. It is for this reason that in the current system, the primary weight is placed upon demonstrated understanding of the format, such as for people who push an unknown deck that later becomes well-accepted, even if they themselves did not pilot it, or there are discrepencies between their lists and the winning ones.

[Peter_Rotten]

sorry for the bump - I just edited a ton into my above post.

[Zach Tartell]

Parcher, I could probably paint a pretty convincing picture of why tournament success, taken alone, is a pretty poor indicator of value to this forum. I am hoping that you will concede that point. If that is the case, can't we just chalk Zach's promotion delay to the adepts doing what comes natural? They waited to see if he would be an asset to the site. If that is so we can move on to P_R's agenda for the topic.

Loser! I dug through my posts, and came up with this:

Team Forums: 500+. This includes the time I worked as a Judge in the CANGD thing, but I can say without even a shred of shame that I prolly have 700-800 posts within the EPIC team forum alone. I don't feel like that's a bad thing, though. That's what team forums are for. Testing, discussing, bitching. Whatever.

A meager 76 posts come from the Adept Forum (and that may ahve gone up a whole one since I did the search).

379 come from Mishmash. I thought that'd be more. Who knew?

345 posts in Deck Development (N&D, ED, and DTB). Of those, though, prolly 60-100 are in Enchantress. Maybe not that high, but I'm not gonna dig through and actually count. And I can't search specifically in the Enchantress thread.

And then 500+ in the Community, Tournament, and Card Ruling forums. That has to come from a lot of +1ery relating to my own tournament reports or trash talk within tournament threads. I am almost too embarrassed to search my posts for those that are only "Sick burn!".

See? that worked out well. It's not too horrendous.

Also, I'm totally awesome and wrecked shit up to get the teal, dudes. Maybe you should just 4-0-2 the swiss of three consecutive tournaments. That seems like a good policy. If somebody can not lose a match in three reported tournaments I'll nominate them. Sound fair?

[Parcher]

The dissemination of information is a crucial problem that affects all levels and layers of reality, I'm afraid. It's for this reason that we generally employ Occam's Razor; to shave away all unnecessary assumptions and go with the simplest answer that works.

There could, even now, be a howling wave of death riding towards our Solar System from a Gamma Ray Burst a few light years away. But we have no way of knowing this or acting upon it until it reaches us and wipes out three quarters of life on the planet. What then to do? I guess we have to function as we weren't all about to be sent to the Thunder Dome.

Someone's off-site contributions are, at best, hard to verify. Usually this is impossible, at least with the level of effort most people on this site are willing to do. And the reason that they're hard to verify is fairly simple; it doesn't affect the discussion forum. In fact, playskill barely does. What does matter on the discussion forum that is the Source is strategic and analytical depth and knowledge. It is for this reason that in the current system, the primary weight is placed upon demonstrated understanding of the format, such as for people who push an unknown deck that later becomes well-accepted, even if they themselves did not pilot it, or there are discrepencies between their lists and the winning ones.

This is an excellent point. However, shouldn't tournament success with said deck demonstrate understanding of the format? Not only through correct deck selection and knowledge of the deck, but also knowledge of the match-ups faced?

Also, if the creation/improvement of the deck is done off-site, but full disclosure, discussion, and reasoning is done after success with the deck here on The Source, should not that also count as demonstrable knowledge?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

That's what team forums are for. Testing,

rlly?


Oshitwe'vebeendoingitwrong.

[Nightmare]

379 come from Mishmash. I thought that'd be more. Who knew?

Biggest surprise to me was that you've only racked up about 150 posts in the Reported Posts thread.

This is an excellent point. However, shouldn't tournament success with said deck demonstrate understanding of the format? Not only through correct deck selection and knowledge of the deck, but also knowledge of the match-ups faced?

Sure. And it does. But what good is it to us, as a discussion board, if they can't (or don't) effectively communicate that knowledge to the rest of us?

[Brehn]

I'm absolutely with Nightmare here. Success in tournaments should not be a wildcard for adepthood.

What I don't understand though: why is the promotion of a person rejected because of his low post count, when at the same time there are adepts with a lower postcount that don't get demoted?

[Nightmare]

To the point of airing whatever dirty laundry we seem to have:

The reason Geoff wasn't promoted had only a tangental connection with his post count - the truth is, he doesn't own a computer, and has little interest in being involved with the site on a regular basis. That isn't the image we have in mind of what an adept should be, and so we decided to hold off on his promotion for the time being. There's nothing sinister there.

[Peter_Rotten]

This is an excellent point. However, shouldn't tournament success with said deck demonstrate understanding of the format? Not only through correct deck selection and knowledge of the deck, but also knowledge of the match-ups faced?

Also, if the creation/improvement of the deck is done off-site, but full disclosure, discussion, and reasoning is done after success with the deck here on The Source, should not that also count as demonstrable knowledge?

But at the same time, what does any of this do for the site? What does it matter (for discussion) if JoeShmoe wins with Slivers at GenCon and doesn't make a single post here. What should we acknowledge about Joe's success other than saying, hey good job?

///

I'm going to try again with your original point.

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.

We need to clear up some terms/things here before I can better respond:

1. What do you consider "low post count"?
1a. What is "high post count"?
2. Which Adepts have been promoted in the last two years?
2a. Are we considering "two years" to start from today and go back until Aug 2006 or are we considering two years to be the 07/08 years?
3. When was tournament success removed from the Adept guidelines (if it was ever there)?
4. In your 3rd sentence, you say "Adepts from that time." Which "time" are you refering to?
5. What exactly is "exactly the opposite" of tournament success? I would assume "tournament failure" - which, of course, should also be fully defined. Is a string of 9th places considered tournament failure? Is only going 0-X tournament failure?

Can you see why I'm getting frustrated with your claims? They are unsubtantiated and vague. Define and expand them so that we can make some progress.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is an excellent point. However, shouldn't tournament success with said deck demonstrate understanding of the format? Not only through correct deck selection and knowledge of the deck, but also knowledge of the match-ups faced?

But it's not tangible. Maybe the person is an idiot-savant that only knows how to play intuitively, and can never transfer this knowledge to another. How then does it benefit the site and the community at large?

Also, if the creation/improvement of the deck is done off-site, but full disclosure, discussion, and reasoning is done after success with the deck here on The Source, should not that also count as demonstrable knowledge?

Of course it should. However, I get the feeling that you're going to refer to a bunch of one-offs here, so we come to the other problem; decks in Legacy don't get the massive gammut of tournament testing that decks in other formats do. Legacy tournaments are less common, and most of them are lost to the mists of time. And most are small enough to be completely weighted by what a few people chose to play. This means that when we speak of "results" we are necessarily speaking of shakier subject matter than when I say, "Well, Faeries won 9 PTQs this week, it's obviously the deck to beat in Block". A lot of the instances you're probably thinking of involve people getting really questionable once-off success, and being unwilling to explain or rationalize deck decisions or certain criticisms. And given the frequency with which these decks then fall off the radar, can people be blamed for being skeptical? When was the last time anyone played The Game? But that had two GP T8's to it's credit.

[Finn]

Loser! I dug through my posts, and came up with this:

Team Forums: 500+. This includes the time I worked as a Judge in the CANGD thing, but I can say without even a shred of shame that I prolly have 700-800 posts within the EPIC team forum alone. I don't feel like that's a bad thing, though. That's what team forums are for. Testing, discussing, bitching. Whatever.

A meager 76 posts come from the Adept Forum (and that may ahve gone up a whole one since I did the search).

379 come from Mishmash. I thought that'd be more. Who knew?

345 posts in Deck Development (N&D, ED, and DTB). Of those, though, prolly 60-100 are in Enchantress. Maybe not that high, but I'm not gonna dig through and actually count. And I can't search specifically in the Enchantress thread.

And then 500+ in the Community, Tournament, and Card Ruling forums. That has to come from a lot of +1ery relating to my own tournament reports or trash talk within tournament threads. I am almost too embarrassed to search my posts for those that are only "Sick burn!".

See? that worked out well. It's not too horrendous.

Also, I'm totally awesome and wrecked shit up to get the teal, dudes. Maybe you should just 4-0-2 the swiss of three consecutive tournaments. That seems like a good policy. If somebody can not lose a match in three reported tournaments I'll nominate them. Sound fair?

Zach, I don't know you, but I don't give a rat's ass about most of this discussion - most of all the post count crap. So I hope you were being sarcastic as usual here.

@Parcher, by your logic we should make this guy an adept.

Gadiel Szleifer
Let me remind you of his illustrious accomplishments in Legacy: Top 8 at GP Columbus

Notable quotes:
How much work did you put in for the format?
None

How big a factor was Hulk Flash in your testing?
Running it but none - didn't test

Do you think Flash needs to be banned in Legacy?
Who cares?