The Adept System (SB)

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

You know, I've thought about this quite a bit over the past few days. I started in the "um, who gives a fuck?" camp, moved to the "let's change the color of everyone's (admins included) username to blue" camp (camp occupancy: 1), then went along with the "fuck the adept group, let's delete it" camp for a day or two.

In the end, I've come full circle. I'm not convinced there's an actual "problem" that deleting the "Legacy Adept" user group will actually solve. Will it somehow improve Legacy deck innovation? I really fucking doubt it. Good ideas tend to speak for themselves, and bad ideas, regardless of who is speaking them, prove to be pretty worthless in short order.

Does having a "Legacy Adept" group encourage the "status quo?" For one, I don't even know what that means. Does Legacy have a status quo? If so, enlighten me. I've been following the evolution of this format since 9/1/04 and have seen it shift regularly. We've seen Goblins-heavy metas, Flash, Threshold, but mainly a dynamic, vibrant and evolving format. I can neither blame nor praise the Adept group for that. Change seems to happen on its own accord.

To me, being an Adept is a sort of "this guy is worth listening" stamp of approval. They're not always right, they're not frequently wrong and I don't really see the harm in dispensing these badges from time to time. Seems harmless, at worst.

So, at the end of the day, what value is there in fixing something that isn't broken? In short, who gives a fuck?

The problem is that the words "legacy" and "adept" imply some sort of remarkable talent in the format.

And this isn't the case. So those who have real talent in the format, but not necessarily board presence or eloquence, become offended that someone is an adept, when that someone has never done anything worth noting in the format, just because his posts are coherent.


And it's a problem because the perception of a problem IS a problem.

[DeathwingZERO]

When I started posting in here (just before the split), I used to think the Adepts were those that were promoted because they both at least had knowledge of the metagame, and could articulate their points in manners that everyone would be able to understand.

Has that really changed? It seems that's really what the point of the adepts was, that they put the effort into at least investing time into the format and helping others.

[Peter_Rotten]

I don't remember... what were the Adepts called before Legacy? They were NOT 1.5 Adepts. Were they called Source Adepts?

[Deep6er]

I think so. I remember being pissed that I couldn't change my title until I had gotten 600 or so posts, and that was infuriating. Fortunately, you changed that. But that was after the split. Since I didn't do too much here until after the split, it's a bit fuzzy. But, I do think it was "Source Adept". However, there were very few people with that title because most Adepts had over 600 posts so they could edit their titles.

Also, it seems to me that people keep on saying they have problems with "particular" Adepts, but they never name them. I think that if the administration really wants to see what the problem is, then people should be named. I know that I got lynched on the last iteration of this thread, and it might happen again, but whatever. I think it would be more helpful for everybody who has problems with Adept status and what it means to post who they think "problem" Adepts are. I figure one of two or three things will happen:

1) Adept comes in here all angry-like and defends himself and we have a hilarious flame-war while the guy defends himself.

2) Adept realizes that he may be a problem poster and changes his habits.

3) Nobody comes in and posts because they don't want to be "that douchebag".

I think that the forum community that is actively against the Adept status should state people they have problems with in order to provide examples of their problems with Adept status. For example, in the last iteration of the thread I was roasted for being an asshole. That's fine. If you think that Adepts shouldn't have attitudes like I did/do, you should bring that up. If you think that certain Adepts shouldn't sound off as superior (Teeniebopper has been demoted since then, but he is the example I'm using ((sorry))), then bring that up as well.

Those are both things that I remember from the last thread. Examples are worth a great deal when considering changes to the existing structure. So, all of the people who think I'm an arrogant douchebag with a need to feel superior, step right up. Tell the administration what you think of Adepts that you have problems with, that way everyone can examine in deeper detail the bone of contention that some people seem to be gnawing on.

[Sims]

I don't remember... what were the Adepts called before Legacy? They were NOT 1.5 Adepts. Were they called Source Adepts?

Vintage Restricted Adepts, VRAs, as I recall. I was promoted after the switch to Legacy, but I seem to recall seeing VRA under FakeSpams name often.

[MTG Guru]

Why are people bitching about colors of an adept and adepts in general? I sense a real mist of jealousy going on here. It doesn't matter...

[The Rack]

Why are people bitching about colors of an adept and adepts in general? I sense a real mist of jealousy going on here. It doesn't matter...

Hey thanks a lot for all the discussion you provoked, I'm really glad you dropped in.


PR when was the last time you cut people from the adept list? just wondering.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I think so. I remember being pissed that I couldn't change my title until I had gotten 600 or so posts, and that was infuriating. Fortunately, you changed that. But that was after the split. Since I didn't do too much here until after the split, it's a bit fuzzy. But, I do think it was "Source Adept". However, there were very few people with that title because most Adepts had over 600 posts so they could edit their titles.

Also, it seems to me that people keep on saying they have problems with "particular" Adepts, but they never name them. I think that if the administration really wants to see what the problem is, then people should be named. I know that I got lynched on the last iteration of this thread, and it might happen again, but whatever. I think it would be more helpful for everybody who has problems with Adept status and what it means to post who they think "problem" Adepts are. I figure one of two or three things will happen:

1) Adept comes in here all angry-like and defends himself and we have a hilarious flame-war while the guy defends himself.

2) Adept realizes that he may be a problem poster and changes his habits.

3) Nobody comes in and posts because they don't want to be "that douchebag".

I think that the forum community that is actively against the Adept status should state people they have problems with in order to provide examples of their problems with Adept status. For example, in the last iteration of the thread I was roasted for being an asshole. That's fine. If you think that Adepts shouldn't have attitudes like I did/do, you should bring that up. If you think that certain Adepts shouldn't sound off as superior (Teeniebopper has been demoted since then, but he is the example I'm using ((sorry))), then bring that up as well.

Those are both things that I remember from the last thread. Examples are worth a great deal when considering changes to the existing structure. So, all of the people who think I'm an arrogant douchebag with a need to feel superior, step right up. Tell the administration what you think of Adepts that you have problems with, that way everyone can examine in deeper detail the bone of contention that some people seem to be gnawing on.

LoLz I luv hilariyus flamez. This r gud idea.

[Deep6er]

I was totally going to put that at the bottom too. :)

EDIT: But hey, in my defense, the last time we had this thread, I showed up too late to the party to jump on the "hate David Gearhart" bandwagon. Or, at the very least, defend myself. So, you know, I was kind of hoping that I would be able to this time.

Also, I would have written "these r guddest ideyas EVAR!". Stupid.

[Peter_Rotten]

PR when was the last time you cut people from the adept list? just wondering.

I have never cut anyone from the Adept list.

[Bardo]

The problem is that the words "legacy" and "adept" imply some sort of remarkable talent in the format.

I think we're arguing over terminology here. To me "Legacy Adept" implies no such "remarkable talent," just a peer-recognized competence and proficiency. If the user group were titled, "Legacy Master" or "Legacy Guru," I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but the shading around "adept" is not all that glorious.

Again, to me, "Legacy Adept" is the "this guy is probably worth listening to, maybe not about everything Legacy-related, but enough and we think his ideas are pretty good" stamp of approval; not, "this is one of the pioneering heros of our beloved format his words are sacrosanct." That's a bit of hyperbole there, but you get my drift.

And this isn't the case. So those who have real talent in the format, but not necessarily board presence or eloquence, become offended that someone is an adept, when that someone has never done anything worth noting in the format, just because his posts are coherent.

There are quite a few criteria for being a Adept--and being a boorish, condescending asshole, regardless of the clearness and brilliance of their ideas, is not Adept-worthy. It's generally been implemented as an all-around "meets [this] standard of posting."

About people being offended by the adept group, um, fuck them? It's not our job to please an arguably self-serving vocal minority who feels slighted they aren't recognized by one website. I think it's a dangerous position to think The Source speaks for the Legacy format and being a Legacy Adept here means anything more than it is (recognition by a group of people on this website).

And it's a problem because the perception of a problem IS a problem.

Whose perception? A lot of the early parts of this thread seem more about sour grapes (not you though).

I still fail to see that problem that needs fixing here.

PR when was the last time you cut people from the adept list? just wondering.

None of the mods/admins unilaterally decides who is an adept and who is not. The staff + Adepts vote Adepts in. When it comes to demotions, the staff decides as a group to do it. Having seen it done a handful of times, I can tell you that you have the wrong idea on how we operate. However, PR may be bald, but he's a fair guy who does a fucking ton for this site.

[The Rack]

I didn't mean any offense guys. I meant to say when was the last time someone was demoted from Adept status. I don't know how it's done but I heard Nightmare mention that he knew of Adepts being demoted. My bad.

[Bardo]

I didn't mean any offense guys. I meant to say when was the last time someone was demoted from Adept status. I don't know how it's done but I heard Nightmare mention that he knew of Adepts being demoted. My bad.

The odds are too good this thread will turn into a total shit storm.

The staff doesn't enjoy demoting adepts, but sometimes we need to balance our priorities for this site -- trying to maintain a healthy environment for the free exchange of ideas -- with the interests of others (who, we feel, are degrading that environment).

In general, if the staff has problems with specific posters, we like to deal with those posters personally, not engaging in witch-hunts or forcing people into a corner.

So, I'm going to decline answering on the specifics, other than to say I can only remember three or so Adepts getting demoted in the past few months.

[Nightmare]

Actually we demoted like 15 of them less than a year ago. All due to prolonged inactivity.

[AngryTroll]

"this is one of the pioneering heros of our beloved format his words are sacrosanct."

That's the "Infamous Bear" supertype, as opposed to the title of "Adept".

[raharu]

That's the "Infamous Bear" supertype, as opposed to the title of "Adept".

But he can't play blue :3

[Bardo]

Actually we demoted like 15 of them less than a year ago. All due to prolonged inactivity.

It was on 6/14/07; so, more like 15 months ago.

The Adepts we've demoted in the past year have been for the way they were/are active.

[Michael Keller]

There are quite a few criteria for being a Adept--and being a boorish, condescending asshole, regardless of the clearness and brilliance of their ideas, is not Adept-worthy. It's generally been implemented as an all-around "meets [this] standard of posting."

I find this quite the irony considering many of the Adepts who post tend to come off a tad bit elitist in their presentation of ideas, which is not necessarily a bad thing. This could be conceived as being condescending, which is unacceptable, but if you're not a dedicated poster or someone who takes an active interest in the format then it doesn't matter anyways.

A lot of us have met and know each other on here. And a lot don't know anyone on here because they might feel obscured by the overwhelming presence of such diligent-posting individuals that they will feel insecure about expressing their ideas in front of people who have seniority. It's like that no matter what you do when you're new, anyways.

[Bardo]

I find this quite the irony considering many of the Adepts who post tend to come off a tad bit elitist in their presentation of ideas, which is not necessarily a bad thing. This could be conceived as being condescending, which is unacceptable, but if you're not a dedicated poster or someone who takes an active interest in the format then it doesn't matter anyways.

Not to be argumentative, but I think Adepts being elitist and condescending to others is a bad thing for this site. At best, it makes the tone of this site look crude to outsiders; at worst, it discourages some players from getting into the community, because they think they'll get pounced on, and who the fuck needs that? I don't want to name names, because I don't think that will be productive, but I would like a few of the Adepts to take their attitude down a notch or two. That's just my opinion.

A lot of us have met and know each other on here. And a lot don't know anyone on here because they might feel obscured by the overwhelming presence of such diligent-posting individuals that they will feel insecure about expressing their ideas in front of people who have seniority. It's like that no matter what you do when you're new, anyways.

Meh. My introduction to the online MtG community, after taking a 6-7 years hiatus from this game, was TheManaDrain (circa 2003-04). I felt intimidated to post there at first, because I didn't think I could contribute meaningfully and was so out of touch with the game (in general) and format (vintage). I must have lurked for about 6 months before I was ready to post. Looking back, being intimidated was a good thing for me, and when I started posting, I tried my best to make sure I had something I thought was worth reading. A bunch of years later and I still feel the same way and I would like to see the level of posting a lot higher on this site.

Anyway, this is just the Internet, and I try not to take it too seriously, but everyone has to start somewhere (post count: 0). If someone is insecure about posting on a website about a fucking card game, they should get over themselves and post intelligently or remain a lurker, get what they can from the site (tech, lists, tips, etc.) and not fret it.

[Dan Turner]

Hello I am new to Legacy, having made the transfer from Standard/Extended.
When I came to these boards I made the assumption that Legacy Adept branded posters are people who:

a.)Know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to Legacy.
That's why they are called Adepts

b.)Play and consistently win/place/show in tournaments.
To show that they know what they are talking about