The Adept System (SB)

[frogboy]

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?

Because the main point is to promote people for facilitating intelligent discussion. If someone wins a bunch of tournaments and is obviously a master, that's cool, but not really useful unless he's posting about it to some reasonable degree. I don't remember the exact circumstances nor do I remember number of posts, but as this sort of thing is at least to some degree a case by case basis, if you were more specific I could probably answer the question.

I think post counts, titles, colors, are all good things. Most of the DTB threads, etc, are crammed full of people with new ideas and old questions that have been addressed and basically a whole lot of fairly useless stuff. I scan the thread for the obviously intelligent posters who post relatively frequently, and read just their posts and replies and get the information I need in a much more efficient fashion.

edit: Actually, a better example than Gadiel would be GerryT; GT has an account here and made a few posts in I think Goblins-related threads a couple years ago, and is also just actually a master. He could win every legacy tournament in New England for months and we wouldn't promote him unless he was also contributing to discussion.

[Parcher]

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?

For at least the third time; if they post here after the success of a deck that had no development here, and explain their deck choices, match-ups, card selection, sideboard, and participate in reasoning and discussion on the above all after said tournament, I think it should have as much weight if all was done on-site for numerous posts ahead of time.

1. What do you consider "low post count"?

I don't have an opinion on this. Many others do though. It is the voicing of this opinion that I am refering to.

1a. What is "high post count"?

To me, over three a day avarage.

2. Which Adepts have been promoted in the last two years?

A lot. Nihil, Tacosnape, Pinder, Bryant, Zach, Der, freakish, Illisius, and Eldariel are the first to come to mind.

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?

The latter.

3. When was tournament success removed from the Adept guidelines (if it was ever there)?

This is a point of contention I'm sure. I know at least since Bardo revised the guidelines that it has been at least minimalized. And I am certain that it isn't a requirement. A perfect example of what previously was happening with promotion would be Gearhart, who was promoted with 40 posts.

4. In your 3rd sentence, you say "Adepts from that time." Which "time" are you refering to?

Before 2007.

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?

No, failure is not necessarily the opposite. Not ever playing in any tournaments is more what I was referring to. Posting and playing online seems to be more to the reality of most. At least participating in tournaments occasionally would suggest a vested interest in the format. And the "no tournaments" argument does not hold water. I regularly drive 9+ hours to tournaments. People drove two days to get to GenCon.

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?

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.

Your'e right of course. But there are two instances which fall outside of these guidlines. First, when it is not a one-off. When the same person keep successes with the same deck, and returns to The Source arfter each fo these to explain their revisions and the reasoning behind them. Smelski again comes to mind. Caplan is another.

The other is when it is not a one-off, but a different deck piloted by the same person. To me, this gives an example of an even broader knowledge of the format. This again assumes that said deck and tournament were brought to discussion on this site.

And I won our local tournament with The Game last week. You should of been there.

[Deep6er]

Bullshit. That was a top 4 split. I totally crushed you with Team America in the swiss too. :)

[Parcher]

The fuck you did. Your deck lost to Living Wish, sac LED, discard my hand, Shreikmaw gets in for sixteen.

Punk. :)

[Peter_Rotten]

For at least the third time; if they post here after the success of a deck that had no development here, and explain their deck choices, match-ups, card selection, sideboard, and participate in reasoning and discussion on the above all after said tournament, I think it should have as much weight if all was done on-site for numerous posts ahead of time.

...as long as they do it three times a day average?

In reference to low post count, you say this:

I don't have an opinion on this. Many others do though. It is the voicing of this opinion that I am refering to

This is a bit tangental, but how can you have an opinion about high post count but not low post count? Plus, your following posts seem to imply you do value post count and have an opinion about it:

I do have one issue with the current Adept guidlines. It rewards people who write, not those who do...

no one has been made an Adept with a low post count in almost two years... High count, with no discernable deck or tournament results.

More than half these people were made Adepts in the past year. Of the ones who weren't, two are famous for internet debate which leads to the high post count. And one doesn't have a high post count. The rest are only on there because of their post count.

Fact: Not to put too fine a point on it, for example, one had a tremendous run of tournament success, but was not promoted until recently because his post count was considered too low.

Fact: The quality over quantity arguement doesn't work either. Another nominee who overqualifes in deck, format, and Magic knowledge, with the tournament success to back it up, and post extremely well on said subjects was not voted in as an Adept recently. The required reasoning by most? Very low post count.

The reasoning in the vote was that he was too new, and his countwas too low.

Which begs the question: how can you not define (or have an opinion about) low post count but point it out and complain that someone was not promoted because of it.

What is low post count to you?

Anyway, this brings us back to the question, how do you even know some of this "information?" "Information" is in quotes since it seems more like hearsay than anything you can prove.

A lot. Nihil, Tacosnape, Pinder, Bryant, Zach, Der, freakish, Illisius, and Eldariel are the first to come to mind.

And your problem with these promotions/Adepts is what again? That they don't deserve their status because they have not created a new deck, T8ed with it, and than posted about it - but not too much? Which one do you believe doesn't deserve his status? Let's look at Tacosnape. He created DragonStompy, did well at tournies with it, and posted quality info before and after his success with that deck. How about Bryant? Shouldn't he be credited with TES? Pinder? Slivers development? Nihil? Der?

This is a point of contention I'm sure. I know at least since Bardo revised the guidelines that it has been at least minimalized. And I am certain that it isn't a requirement. A perfect example of what previously was happening with promotion would be Gearhart, who was promoted with 40 posts.

So your problem is that the guidelines have changed? And when was Gearhart promoted? Could it possibly be before any of the members you listed?

No, failure is not necessarily the opposite. Not ever playing in any tournaments is more what I was referring to. Posting and playing online seems to be more to the reality of most. At least participating in tournaments occasionally would suggest a vested interest in the format. And the "no tournaments" argument does not hold water. I regularly drive 9+ hours to tournaments. People drove two days to get to GenCon.

So essentially you want Adepts held to your standards, not the site's standards. They should develop a deck but tell no one of it until it is completed and T8s. Then they should post about it, but they shouldn't post too much. Then they should drive 9 hours to tournies because, hell, if you did it, then anyone should be able to.

Your'e right of course. But there are two instances which fall outside of these guidlines. First, when it is not a one-off. When the same person keep successes with the same deck, and returns to The Source arfter each fo these to explain their revisions and the reasoning behind them. Smelski again comes to mind. Caplan is another.

The other is when it is not a one-off, but a different deck piloted by the same person. To me, this gives an example of an even broader knowledge of the format. This again assumes that said deck and tournament were brought to discussion on this site.

Which leads us back to tounament success being a relatively small factor for Adepthood. In reference to the site - who cares if you win a tournament but are not active here.

[Parcher]

I find it highly hypocritical that you are making all of these arguments personal. At no time did I reference myself or my standards in any of these posts. Only what I do think has become standard guidelines at The Source.

I only brought up post count in as far as it seems to be a yardstick to how Adepts are chosen. I never voiced an opinion either way, only that many have commented on a low post count being grounds for exclusion. My complaint was that this was a biased and unfair means, especially when it doesn't hold true for all.

Yes, Gearhart was promoted before any of the people I mentioned.

Anyone can "create" a deck. Creating a deck that is actually viable, and then putting that deck into action is another thing entirely. Anyone can spew hundreds of crappy ideas onto a forum. Some of them may even work. Combining them effectively for me has more relevance for success. Anyone can win a tournament. Going to your local shop and pwning n00bs in eight-mans every week for years will surely get your rating up. Beating three 1800+ players and two 1900+ players in the same tournament for me has more relevance for success.

And again, I don't hold anyone to my standards. Simply put though, all should be held to the same standard. For example, promoting someone who does not participate in tournament due to their complaint that they have none locally to attend I would consider biased. If they are actively involved in the Legacy community they will at some point find a way.

So is tournament success important or not? Your last post says no, but previously you suggest that it is in the Adept Promotion Guidelines.

[Deep6er]

Oh, yeah. But that game was gay. Like you.

Whatever, still totally 5-0'd that tournament. So, in conclusion, SUCK IT.

[Peter_Rotten]

I find it highly hypocritical that you are making all of these arguments personal. At no time did I reference myself or my standards in any of these posts. Only what I do think has become standard guidelines at The Source.

You mention what you think should be relevant for Adept standards. Why would I not assume that those were your standards?

I only brought up post count in as far as it seems to be a yardstick to how Adepts are chosen. I never voiced an opinion either way, only that many have commented on a low post count being grounds for exclusion. My complaint was that this was a biased and unfair means, especially when it doesn't hold true for all.

How can you voice an opinion and then say you have NOT voiced an opinion?

Anyway, the standards for Adepthood are clear - I think. Found here http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=7455. Post count is not mentioned in them.

And again, I don't hold anyone to my standards. Simply put though, all should be held to the same standard. For example, promoting someone who does not participate in tournament due to their complaint that they have none locally to attend I would consider biased. If they are actively involved in the Legacy community they will at some point find a way.

So is tournament success important or not? Your last post says no, but previously you suggest that it is in the Adept Promotion Guidelines.

Which previous post do I suggest that? And once again, here are the Adept guidelines http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=7455. The most relevant one to the above quote is probably #5

5. Ideally, though not necessarily required, some form of dedicated service to the format, which can include article writing, dedicated development of new decks, significant optimization of existing archetypes, or organizing/hosting Legacy tournaments in your area.

[Citrus-God]

edit: Actually, a better example than Gadiel would be GerryT; GT has an account here and made a few posts in I think Goblins-related threads a couple years ago, and is also just actually a master. He could win every legacy tournament in New England for months and we wouldn't promote him unless he was also contributing to discussion.

You know, while in Minnesota, Gerry T. played lot's of Vial Goblins and earlier incarnations of UGR Mental Note Thresh way back when. I always see that man Top 8 Legacy events when looking through old MN Legacy Top 8s.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Can we split this thread in two?

Thread 1 - BUZZ thread - ie, going somewhere.
Thread 2 - Post Count/Relation of Adepthood to Post count, ie, not going anywhere, ever.

[The Rack]

Roten, this is for you, the whole post count thing was just mentioned as another way of distinguishing a person from another, I figured that if we did away with it it might be better. You obviously read a lot deeper into than that. And the whole making my post count high and yours really low is pretty cute but hasn't really proved anything. It is true that people will look through threads and only look at those with 1,000 plus posts and respond to those. You can believe me or not, but it's true. You can go ahead and quote saying that the whole post count discussion is dead too because that'll make you look cool.

Oh and not being recognized as much as an adept, that's not bullshit. Never in my post was I whining or giving a bad attitutde. I post when I'm calm and I've thought about what to say so my emotions don't get the best of me in certain discussion, in the RL mainly though.

Questions:
How many teammates on Team EPIC are NOT Adepts?
What do you have to do to get a Team forum?
Despite how powerful I feel from this huge post count can you change it back to what it was?

[Michael Keller]

Anyone can "create" a deck. Creating a deck that is actually viable, and then putting that deck into action is another thing entirely. Anyone can spew hundreds of crappy ideas onto a forum. Some of them may even work. Combining them effectively for me has more relevance for success. Anyone can win a tournament. Going to your local shop and pwning n00bs in eight-mans every week for years will surely get your rating up. Beating three 1800+ players and two 1900+ players in the same tournament for me has more relevance for success.

Well, some people aren't as blessed with having an extraordinarily difficult meta-game like Syracuse or the like. I just think if you're an active member, you keep it real, talk with respect, and post useful information, people will start to take you seriously.

Honestly, we're all your peers and what you do on here and in large tournaments speaks volumes to the kind of person and player you are.

And as for that whole moderator stepping aside thing: I think each and every one of them has done a great job keeping the site upwards and in check. You have to understand that they're trying to regulate a forum which is increasing in size with folks who aren't as sharp as they could be and just spew nonsense into forums people try to develop. Kudos to them for giving us a cool area to share ideas.

[Peter_Rotten]

Questions:
How many teammates on Team EPIC are NOT Adepts?

Epic has 11 members registered here.
3 of them are Adepts.
1 is an Admin.
1 is a Mod.
6 are regular members.

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy. They have a whopping 8 Adepts in their membership.

What do you have to do to get a Team forum?

Have a team.

Despite how powerful I feel from this huge post count can you change it back to what it was?

I don't remember what it was.

[Michael Keller]

Epic has 11 members registered here.
3 of them are Adepts.
1 is an Admin.
1 is a Mod.
6 are regular members.

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy. They have a whopping 8 Adepts in their membership.



Have a team.



I don't remember what it was.

Left Field has 7 members.

3 have 1800+ Ratings.
3 are regular members.
1 has a 1900+ Rating.
1 is a Mod.
0 are Adepts.

And we have pound for pound the oldest and arguably most successful team on the site.

Where's our love?

[The Rack]

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy.

No conspiracy theory just curiosity.

Have a team.

A lot of people do, mine being the most successful San Diego team.

Are you just gonna ignore everything else I posted?

[DeathwingZERO]

Post search shows The Rack @ 479 posts, as of his last one in this thread. Not quite sure how accurate that is though, thought he had more.

And I'd like to chime in a little bit on both the post count and the join dates. Seeing as I've been here since 2004, that puts 4 years under my belt of membership. Now, notice that my post count is roughly 1550, I did a little research on that.

I have under 400 posts in the Format Dev section. So under a quarter of my posts are actually doing any real relevance to the format, and some of those might not have even been relevant posts.

I have 500+ in both Mish Mash and Other Legacy discussion. A number of these from Other Discussion are going to be random trash talking, congrats on finishes, various tournament announcements from my old shop, etc. Again, not much relevance.

So to use myself as an example, does the fact that I have 1500 posts mean a thing to people? I've had discussions in Survival, Belcher, Ichorid, Aggro Loam, and a number of decks that no longer have open threads here, but for the most part, my posts are of a tournament player that likes to BS with like minded individuals.

So for those who actually use join date or post count as a relevant factor, take the extra step and maybe do some reading up on the people you consider worth looking into. I personally say that a majority of the Adept and Mod staff are very well versed with what's going on in Legacy in their areas, if not in general. I'd say the same for a portion of the regular members as well. If post count or join dates are a factor for you, maybe you should look into changing how you view people's opinions on here, rather than trying to use it as a defense to justify that either of them hold any merit. I'm the perfect example of them not.

[Deep6er]

Left Field has 7 members.

3 have 1800+ Ratings.
3 are regular members.
1 has a 1900+ Rating.
1 is a Mod.
0 are Adepts.

And we have pound for pound the oldest and arguably most successful team on the site.

Where's our love?

Team David Gearhart has 1 member.

1 had a 1900+ rating
100% of the members are Adepts

Pound for pound, the player who has won an undisputed ass-ton with Solidarity (and soon It's the Fear).

Do you see how little this fucking matters?

We get it dude, nobody respects your team. But it would be great if we could hear less about your penis-size.

You're a great guy, and I think you're pretty cool, but this is quite literally the ONE thing I don't like about you. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop talking about how your team rocks but everyone else is too stupid to see it. Please.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It does reintroduce the fact that there's an inevitable and almost certainly correct suspicion of geographic bias, whether or not that's the best example of it supposedly rearing it's head. An actual vote on Adeptship would at least sprinkle the bias fairly evenly.

I think that Adeptship needs to be whittled down somehow. It seems obvious to me that as time goes on, with Adepts being added but rarely taken down, we're moving gradually from the position where being an Adept is seen as a nice, if mostly meaningless, privilege, to where lack of Adeptship after a certain period of time is seen as a snub or insult. It's becoming less elite and more an old boys' club.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I'd be more worried about the Unicorn Conspiracy. They have a whopping 8 Adepts in their membership.

It's also less of a team than "everybody who's in NoVa and a handful of people who aren't".

@Dave - Team Bikini is 100% Adept
100% Bikini
100% Not Jack Elgin

We ore teh winz.

[Michael Keller]

You're a great guy, and I think you're pretty cool, but this is quite literally the ONE thing I don't like about you. Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop talking about how your team rocks but everyone else is too stupid to see it. Please.

See this is an unfortunate misnomer:

I have not one time...ONE TIME...ever just spouted randomly about how my team rocks (well, maybe a few times, but after doing well in big tournaments it would seem ok). If you look at these forums, you'll see a RETARDED amount of EPIC talk talk talk. One whisper about how I think any member of our team deserves an upgrade of status because of the things we've done and the things we do and we get this?

You're a cool guy too, bro, but seriously: You need to take a step back pause for a moment. Put yourself in my place. When you work as fucking hard as I did to try and 180 myself, do it, and ask for a little something more, you get pissed on like this. Everyone does respect our team, that quite literally has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with it, because that time is past. But we look at this is an opportunity to have an important say in things around here and we just see it as unfortunate.

Please get the "Mike Keller Pissy Syndrome" thoughts out of your head. I work extremely hard, spend a lot of money and time, and have every fucking right to want more for myself, my team, and the community.