Forums are never going to be the premier place to come up with original, cutting edge decks. As has been mentioned above, professional magic players don't work in public, they keep their work secret. The reason makes sense: that's the bread and butter on their table, they're not going to ship it to the entire world for free on a forum. At the very least, they're going to get SCG to pay them for it - something we can't do here at MTGS on our shoe-string budget.
So if providing original content is something we can't use to compete with SCG or Channel Fireball or TCGplayer, what do we do to make MTGS more relevant?
To my mind, MTGS has two strengths. One, we have the most massive, most active forum-based population of any MTG site on the internet. Two, we made a name for ourselves on data compilation with the rumor mill. We don't come up with original content - we report it, and provide it in an accessible format to our audience.
Up to date metagame information is something that every competitive Magic player is interested in. It takes time to compile and to research, and I think there's market interest in short-cutting that information in a single place. At TCGplayer, a very similar thread that I updated for several months was a major success with the userbase.
But we need people willing to step up and help us update this (most importantly), and also promote it in article format and on Facebook. I'm talking to the Standard mods/the committee about resolving the issue that's being buried amongst ten different stickies. Potentially, we'll throw some redirects to it in other subs.
If this idea takes off, I can see porting it to other formats, and if we can get some support from Hannes, potentially a frontpage link. But it's going to need community support to get this rolling. If you're interested in that, contact me. If you have any other ideas of how to address this, please post them here.
So if providing original content is something we can't use to compete with SCG or Channel Fireball or TCGplayer, what do we do to make MTGS more relevant?
Clamp down on people complaining about netdecking. Saying "I don't netdeck and people who netdeck have no skill" should be an automatic infarction (at least in the mtg general forums and the competitive subforums; casual should be spared, obviously)
Not that I support this, but if you believe that MTGS not attractive to pro players, this is a major source of it. Netdecking is part of the competitive scene.A big, big, big part. And yet netdecking is held in open contempt and hostility. Not just netdecking, but "unfun"/"boring" tactics, "I refuse to play powerful/expensive cards because", "competitive players are jerks" comments, "cheap", "competitive gaming will be the death of magic", "conceding is cheating!" "asking for a win is cheating!" "borrowing cards is cheating" "X (that isn't against the rules) is cheating!" and the like. Make "Playing to win" by Sirlin a required reading, and anyone going against the spirit of that article actively discouraged.
But we need people willing to step up and help us update this (most importantly), and also promote it in article format and on Facebook.
Good articles won't help the image of the site if a significant portion of the userbase derides people who look to the internet for ideas/decks.
"Hey, there's a great article about deck X on the front page--"
"Pshaw, netdeckers. You have to come up with your own deck, otherwise you have no skill!"
I have to agree with mondu on this. The change you're talking about making is not merely one of presenting better information. At some level, it's going to require a shift in the prevailing attitude of the userbase.
Just in the last week, I've seen threads with the gist of:
You're an inferior player if you don't make your own deck
You're "that guy who cares too much about winning" if you call a judge
You're a superior player if you refuse to play the cards that everyone else is playing
These threads are not indicative of an attitude conducive to discussion of professional-level magic.
I don't think this is something that can be solved simply by gentle nudging. It's going to require the mod staff to actually clamp down on those kinds of discussions, which will in turn lead to even more people complaining about how their "Internet forum rights" are being violated.
So if making the site more pro-friendly is your goal, then I believe it can be done. I just don't think you're going to like what has to be done to get it there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Clamp down on people complaining about netdecking. Saying "I don't netdeck and people who netdeck have no skill" should be an automatic infarction (at least in the mtg general forums and the competitive subforums; casual should be spared, obviously)
Not that I support this, but if you believe that MTGS not attractive to pro players, this is a major source of it. Netdecking is part of the competitive scene.A big, big, big part. And yet netdecking is held in open contempt and hostility. Not just netdecking, but "unfun"/"boring" tactics, "I refuse to play powerful/expensive cards because", "competitive players are jerks" comments, "cheap", "competitive gaming will be the death of magic", "conceding is cheating!" "asking for a win is cheating!" "borrowing cards is cheating" "X (that isn't against the rules) is cheating!" and the like. Make "Playing to win" by Sirlin a required reading, and anyone going against the spirit of that article actively discouraged.
Good articles won't help the image of the site if a significant portion of the userbase derides people who look to the internet for ideas/decks.
"Hey, there's a great article about deck X on the front page--"
"Pshaw, netdeckers. You have to come up with your own deck, otherwise you have no skill!"
I'm pretty sure no-one goes into competitive sections and complains about netdeckers. I think as a competitive person, you just need to be more thick-skinned about it when posting outside of the competitive sections of this forum.
Its important to welcome all types of players to MTGS. I have no problem with the desire to become a more competitive hub, all that really requires is sterner moderation of the competitive sections in regard to budget talk and the like. More articles would be desirable as well. Clamping down on casual talk outside of competitive sections of the site just isn't going to happen.
Clamp down on people complaining about netdecking. Saying "I don't netdeck and people who netdeck have no skill" should be an automatic infarction (at least in the mtg general forums and the competitive subforums; casual should be spared, obviously)
Not that I support this, but if you believe that MTGS not attractive to pro players, this is a major source of it. Netdecking is part of the competitive scene.A big, big, big part. And yet netdecking is held in open contempt and hostility. Not just netdecking, but "unfun"/"boring" tactics, "I refuse to play powerful/expensive cards because", "competitive players are jerks" comments, "cheap", "competitive gaming will be the death of magic", "conceding is cheating!" "asking for a win is cheating!" "borrowing cards is cheating" "X (that isn't against the rules) is cheating!" and the like. Make "Playing to win" by Sirlin a required reading, and anyone going against the spirit of that article actively discouraged.
Good articles won't help the image of the site if a significant portion of the userbase derides people who look to the internet for ideas/decks.
"Hey, there's a great article about deck X on the front page--"
"Pshaw, netdeckers. You have to come up with your own deck, otherwise you have no skill!"
I have to agree with mondu on this. The change you're talking about making is not merely one of presenting better information. At some level, it's going to require a shift in the prevailing attitude of the userbase.
Just in the last week, I've seen threads with the gist of:
You're an inferior player if you don't make your own deck
You're "that guy who cares too much about winning" if you call a judge
You're a superior player if you refuse to play the cards that everyone else is playing
These threads are not indicative of an attitude conducive to discussion of professional-level magic.
I don't think this is something that can be solved simply by gentle nudging. It's going to require the mod staff to actually clamp down on those kinds of discussions, which will in turn lead to even more people complaining about how their "Internet forum rights" are being violated.
So if making the site more pro-friendly is your goal, then I believe it can be done. I just don't think you're going to like what has to be done to get it there.
That's an interesting take.
As to the forums themselves, I'm not sure whether we want to try to make them more accommodating to discussion at a professional or semi-professional level. I know we have several players and moderators with Pro experience on their resume, I did a short stint last year myself, but forums really aren't very conducive to generating useful information at that level. It's all public access, publicly visible, and it requires playtesting, expertise, and a fair amount of creativity to give effective deck-building advice. I think that sort of forum-based discussion is best-suited for newer players. I've done some activities like Deck Clinic work in the past elsewhere, but you really don't see a lot of high profile players who are interested in that kind of community engagement, and I've never really had any kind of effective deck-building advice come from a forum thread. Occasionally from article comments, that's it.
While vilifying netdecking certainly is a tad ridiculous, to a certain extent, there's some value to the idea that pure net-decking isn't necessarily the easiest or most effective path to success. I think the last few years have demonstrated how increasingly important innovation is, and how rapidly decklists require updates to account for changes. Certainly, none of my own Top 8 finishes came from paying undo attention to other players' lists, except as potential adversaries or very crude starting points.
I could possibly see some encouragement towards vilifying either netdecking or home-brewing as potential spam if bickering over that has become highly prevalent and interferes with having productive conversations, but truthfully I'm not very concerned with implementing Nazi-mod restrictions on the ideas people can hold about net-decking or home-brewing. Really, both approaches are simply tools, and many players are more adept at one or the other. But bludgeoning people into holding that view doesn't seem very feasible.
I'm more interested in providing information that visitors to the site can use, whether they post in the standard forums or not. Things that will draw people to the site, and increase traffic, whether in the MTG forums, the front page, or simply in general. Although perhaps, having this kind of resource available and well-updated may serve to increase the availability of cutting-edge decklists to help springboard discussion on relevant topics.
@Azrael: There is a net-decking vs homebrew in mtg general. What if we had one of those threads for each format, and any talk about netdecking or such out of there, is a warnable/infractible offense....
@Azrael: There is a net-decking vs homebrew in mtg general. What if we had one of those threads for each format, and any talk about netdecking or such out of there, is a warnable/infractible offense....
Again, the only time I would want to see that sort of thing get hit by an infraction is if it's actually interfering with someone trying to have a productive conversation. Otherwise, I'd rather not play the role of the thought police.
I don't think you're ever going to get a competitive forum on MTGS unless you make it private and invite-only. There will be such a high signal-to-noise ratio that you're either going to have to infract most of the posts or it will drive those who are serious away.
In my playgroup, MTGS is ridiculed. (For context, we have several strong players with pro tour experience and GP t8s.) It's well-known among them that I am a frequent poster on the site and I get made fun of for it even though I don't post in the competitive sections of the site. Who knows what they'll say now that I'm a mod!
More to the point, the idea of having a small number of users with a pulse on the metagame to act as a continually-updating resource, on the other hand, would be more realistic. The Gauntlet thread(s?) are a good start to this from what I can see. Allowing the discussion to continue mostly as it is, but with a stronger focus on the staff's side on keeping the Gauntlet threads up-to date (I am speaking without really knowing what goes on in there) as well as expanding such resources would be my vote.
As you say, Azrael, there usually is not that much to be gained from forum discussions on decks. Higher-level players, in my experience, rely on each other and their own network to do testing and brainstorming, not a website. Thus, trying to force the forum population to act that way seems counterproductive. Obviously disruptive behavior should be moderated aggressively, but trying to cater to a crowd that, percentage wise, is largely non-existent here seems like a fool's errand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
my take is that there is a divide in the community and co-existence is strained at best.
there are a large number of casual players who have a hostile attitude towards competitive players. they consider competitive magic to be unfun and against the spirit of what they like about the game. there are also a large number of competitive players who are not interested in casual magic discussion and come to this site for real competitive strategy talk. they can become frustrated when this talk is hard to come by and often lash out at less competitive players to vent that frustration. this creates a vicious cycle.
my perception of this problem is that the root of it is that the two groups want different things from the game and want different kinds of discussion. when their discussions "cross-streams" in a public thread it basically ruins the thread. the casual players who were discussing funny/interesting/budget things get irritated that a competitive player dismisses their discussion because it is a non-competitive. they then try to hound out the competitive players by insulting competitive magic generally. the competitive player feels annoyed and leaves the website and spreads the "bad reputation" of MTGS to his other competitive gaming friends.
the casual players and competitive players must be separated so they don't cross-streams. for example, the competitive subsection of the Standard forum is actually very good. its tightly moderated and its purpose is clearly labeled. the players who choose to post there know what they're posting about and nobody crosses-streams. the only problem is that the competitive subsection is too small. it can often be just 3 or 4 active posters talking with each other for a few days at a time with the occasional drop in from somebody new.
the parts of the site that are not explicitly labeled as competitive are filled with casual players who are very hostile when a competitive player comes and begins discussing things competitively. it makes the vast majority of this site almost intolerable for a competitive player.
my suggestion is that the community as a whole calls a truce. the vicious cycle has to be broken. the mod/admin staff can enforce this truce by warning/infracting the hostile "get out" posts that casual players often make and by warning/infracting the condescending "casual is bad, you guys suck" posts that competitive players often make. i realize that i've been guilty of the latter (condescending posts) at times myself. i probably should have been warned.
i would also suggest that just as some forums have dedicated competitive subsections, we also add dedicated casual subsections to the forums. standard has a budget discussion subforum but it is basically unused. it also has a forum called "standard deck construction" which is de facto a casual deck subforum but is not explicitly labeled as such so it is often a clash point for casual vs. competitive. it should probably be labeled as a casual subforum.
Here's an idea: if the forum software allows it, set up competitive forums where you have to apply to be able to post. Like the Gutter, only that it isn't invisible to non-members, but you have to send a short application to the moderators of that subforum saying something like "I'm a competitive player, I want to post". We don't want to be elitists about who to allow (everyone who applies will get in), but just having that little barrier might help keep noise and spam to a minimum, and more productive discussion. I'm just mentioning as something to think about.
Anyway, if time allows it, I wouldn't mind getting more invested in producing competitive articles and such for the site. I'm a pretty high level player myself, and could write set reviews (I've written some of these in the past, and they have been quite well-received), and tournament reports from pro-level events. I've also been thinking about a "Field journal" (like Craig Jones had, several years ago) where I maintain a live blog from the event, and respond to questions from users on the fly. This is only possible if there is free wireless internet access on the site, of course, but at American Pro Tours there usually is.
Here's an idea: if the forum software allows it, set up competitive forums where you have to apply to be able to post. Like the Gutter, only that it isn't invisible to non-members, but you have to send a short application to the moderators of that subforum saying something like "I'm a competitive player, I want to post". We don't want to be elitists about who to allow (everyone who applies will get in), but just having that little barrier might help keep noise and spam to a minimum, and more productive discussion. I'm just mentioning as something to think about.
What meta said. I see casuals lambasting competitives daily. It gets pretty old. If my competitive playgroup was sitting around talking about decks and someone started bagging on people for net decking and not looking at decks that are "fun", they would be ignored and not welcome back to testing sessions. That doesn't happen here (and realistically can't) but exacerbates the problem.
There is already an appropriate forum for each type of competitive or casual format. I can't imagine anyone trying to persuade people not to netdeck in the Standard Competitive forums. And likewise, I can't imagine anyone trying to persuade people to netdeck in the casual forums.
There is already an appropriate forum for each type of competitive or casual format. I can't imagine anyone trying to persuade people not to netdeck in the Standard Competitive forums. And likewise, I can't imagine anyone trying to persuade people to netdeck in the casual forums.
So, where is the issue? The Magic General forum?
It happens all the time in the Standard Subforums. Whole threads about it. Go check out the thread on Grafdifgger Cage. A nice highlight:
yes. Magic General is very problematic. as is Standard General and Legacy General. Modern General will probably become problematic soon too as more people start to play that format. The Rumor Mill and its subforums (in particular new card discussion) is possibly the single worst part of the site in this respect.
the clearly labeled parts of the site are very good. the ambiguously defined general parts of the site have alot of this conflict. i think its obvious that labeling is extremely helpful.
I actually remember when decks were updated on the wiki, you could use that to help keep up-to-date information on decks people are playing, archtypes, etc.
You need to find a way to harness the Hive Mind in a way that will benefit you. Creating a "private group" forum is one way of starting the process, another way would be building respectibility. You have to get grinders/pro players to start talking about the competitive forums here once you have something established. Weeding out noise, then establishing an image seems like a logical way of becoming a better "competitive" forum.
Honestly I'm in the camp of if it isn't broken then don't fix it. Do we honestly care that some professional players don't like the site? Do we really need to change? In the playgroups I'm in I've never heard of any disgust for the site at all.
Perhaps there is something I'm missing of course and I understand I don't have alot of pull but thats my $0.02 on the matter.
Honestly I'm in the camp of if it isn't broken then don't fix it. Do we honestly care that some professional players don't like the site? Do we really need to change?
this pretty much sums up my take, but I'm going to elaborate a bit my precise views.
Some people netdeck, some people don't. Yet each side feels it needs to ridicule the other just for playing different. I honestly don't get why people feel so entitled to put down others play styles, but whatever.
After reading the thread it seems that the "general" magic forums are where this is happening the most. Look, this is a forum on the internet, people are going to be self entitled idiots and argue. If it's that big of a problem then why not make it an infraction to blatantly attack the "other side" (aka casuals vs competitive, netdecking vs home-brew). It may make the site a little more harsh, but apparently if we've managed to start the topic here, it is a problem.
I like the idea of each competitive forum having a "private" section for the pros and hardcore players, but what does that do to cut down on the hate in the rest of the forums? Nothing at all.
I agree that the "netdeckers are stupid" and related posts that Binary is describing are most prevalent in Magic General, but I also think that's the place they do the least damage (other than Casual, obviously). If you're coming to this site for help with competitive formats, you're probably going straight to the appropriate competitive subforum. When comments like that crop up in competitive discussions, I think it is a problem. Azrael, I understand your concern about becoming the "thought police", but I think it should be made clear that such comments aren't welcome. We currently do that with budget concerns: the official competitive threads in Standard are very clear that budget discussion is not allowed and won't be tolerated; why can the same standard not be applied to "non-competitive" discussion?
Too much focus is being put on the "netdecker hate" problem here, when a larger problem within the competitive forums themselves is the signal to noise ratio in any given thread. It happens every thread: New users register to make one post about how their homebrew version of a developing competitive/established competitive deck is doing well in their local meta game, without offering any real discussion. People come in, post, ignore other posts without any good reason to make suggestions that were shot down via discussion with good reasoning 3 pages ago. The thread I currently lurk and am somewhat active in, and was seeking feedback in for example, is the Modern Burn Thread. It's a prime example of where forums falter to being at all conductive for competitive testing. The problem in the competitive threads lie in the fact that you can't warn or ban every user who posts only borderline useful posts that even some times make it clear they haven't read the rest of the thread or don't have any knowledge of how the deck has developed over the course of bans, set releases, meta changes and so forth. This is probably where the idea of having a separate forum that is semi-private for serious and competitive players to discuss things wouldn't be a bad idea to start with. But then it comes down to asking yourself, how competitive and serious are people? I can think of a specific user who posts all over the Modern forums adding his 2 cents everywhere, shooting down ideas making posts as if he knows what he's saying, but has openly admitted to never playing those decks before and it was quite obvious otherwise. It's easy to look like you know what you're talking about if you word it right, and there are definitely some users I can think of off the top of my head that could probably gain access via application to that kind of semi-private forum, but who ultimately hinder and make discussion of deck development a pain. Faux know-it-alls and users posting to not really add anything to a chain of discussion in a given thread are far more inhibiting to being a competitive resource than random players' opinions on netdecking.
Too much focus is being put on the "netdecker hate" problem here, when a larger problem within the competitive forums themselves is the signal to noise ratio in any given thread. It happens every thread: New users register to make one post about how their homebrew version of a developing competitive/established competitive deck is doing well in their local meta game, without offering any real discussion. People come in, post, ignore other posts without any good reason to make suggestions that were shot down via discussion with good reasoning 3 pages ago. The thread I currently lurk and am somewhat active in, and was seeking feedback in for example, is the Modern Burn Thread. It's a prime example of where forums falter to being at all conductive for competitive testing. The problem in the competitive threads lie in the fact that you can't warn or ban every user who posts only borderline useful posts that even some times make it clear they haven't read the rest of the thread or don't have any knowledge of how the deck has developed over the course of bans, set releases, meta changes and so forth. This is probably where the idea of having a separate forum that is semi-private for serious and competitive players to discuss things wouldn't be a bad idea to start with. But then it comes down to asking yourself, how competitive and serious are people? I can think of a specific user who posts all over the Modern forums adding his 2 cents everywhere, shooting down ideas making posts as if he knows what he's saying, but has openly admitted to never playing those decks before and it was quite obvious otherwise. It's easy to look like you know what you're talking about if you word it right, and there are definitely some users I can think of off the top of my head that could probably gain access via application to that kind of semi-private forum, but who ultimately hinder and make discussion of deck development a pain. Faux know-it-alls and users posting to not really add anything to a chain of discussion in a given thread are far more inhibiting to being a competitive resource than random players' opinions on netdecking.
All your really asking for is better moderation of the competitive aspect of the forums. If a user is posting a decklist in Competitive and taunting it as the best deck for his meta with zero evidence what his meta is or input on to why it destroys his meta, then that should be infractable as spam in the competitive subforum.
If you have a problem with general users posting competitive hate outside of competitive sections, again, grow a thicker skin and ignore them.
All your really asking for is better moderation of the competitive aspect of the forums. If a user is posting a decklist in Competitive and taunting it as the best deck for his meta with zero evidence what his meta is or input on to why it destroys his meta, then that should be infractable as spam in the competitive subforum.
If you have a problem with general users posting competitive hate outside of competitive sections, again, grow a thicker skin and ignore them.
It's not only better moderation. It's also the userbase attitude in general and users showing some personal accountability for the quality of these forums beyond the moderators babysitting them. Many users here come and post because they can, because they don't feel obligated to add any real discussion and because they don't care and it inhibits intelligent development and discussion for those of us that do care. The user with the deck posing as the best in his meta is only one type of example. The posts I'm talking about aren't necessarily intractable because they add something in regards to the deck but continuously break a chain of acknowledgment that disallows for real brainstorming or thinking. Postsliketheseback to back to back, appear to offer discussion, but are actually purely theoretical, have no testing, or not actually paying attention to the point of the post and adding unneeded clutter and irrelevant banter. Could a mod take care of this? Sure. Could users just help to bring a better sense of context and higher quality posts without ignoring others trying to start a real discussion having done actual testing or get real feedback? That'd be even better, and possibly the only way to do that is to separate the ones who will from the ones who won't because the ones who won't on an open forum like this are of a number overwhelmingly more so than those who will.
Player A: Having the random thought "X card could be good in Y", posts such and doesn't add anything.
Player B: "I thought X card could be good in Y and tested it, and here are the results and my thoughts on the pros and cons of using X card" adds something of value.
If we want a legitimate competitive forum, it needs to start with the users, and filtering users may be the only chance to get that started this late in the game.
I suspect that filtering users out of circulation would that instead of a forum where a large percentage of inexperienced players post, we would have a forum where no one posts.
I don't think there's a quick or elegant solution to the problem of making the forums at large a competitive resource, as mentioned above, but having leadership that encourages proactive discussion, developing a core of competitive/regular players through the method Sene described, and offering resources to draw players in, should be steps in the right direction for the site. It can be much better than it is - not PT level advice, but the quality of decks that can take down an FNM consistently. For most of the magic community, that's a reasonable service, along with the other ideas we're discussing.
If filtering content is necessary or desired, that may be something that could be incorporated into Sene's idea. Free admittance, but aggressively delete content that doesn't meet the bar.
Well, I should clarify that when I refer to filtering users, I'm referring to Sene's idea in general because I feel that will automatically begin to fulfill that need, at least to some degree. Hopefully, the people who really don't care won't bother applying - laziness is one of the ultimate tools to defer users that post as such. While there are plenty of wannabes on the website who think themselves pros that will apply (I'm talking about the user type that tends to derail development discussion with second-hand knowledge about decks and cards they've never actually tested themselves), hopefully those that do care about being competitive and are knowledgable/seeking to become knowledgeable would be able to find a clearer environment with less noise.
Right now, my best idea to attack the problem is the following:
The Standard Gauntlet Thread.
Forums are never going to be the premier place to come up with original, cutting edge decks. As has been mentioned above, professional magic players don't work in public, they keep their work secret. The reason makes sense: that's the bread and butter on their table, they're not going to ship it to the entire world for free on a forum. At the very least, they're going to get SCG to pay them for it - something we can't do here at MTGS on our shoe-string budget.
So if providing original content is something we can't use to compete with SCG or Channel Fireball or TCGplayer, what do we do to make MTGS more relevant?
To my mind, MTGS has two strengths. One, we have the most massive, most active forum-based population of any MTG site on the internet. Two, we made a name for ourselves on data compilation with the rumor mill. We don't come up with original content - we report it, and provide it in an accessible format to our audience.
Up to date metagame information is something that every competitive Magic player is interested in. It takes time to compile and to research, and I think there's market interest in short-cutting that information in a single place. At TCGplayer, a very similar thread that I updated for several months was a major success with the userbase.
But we need people willing to step up and help us update this (most importantly), and also promote it in article format and on Facebook. I'm talking to the Standard mods/the committee about resolving the issue that's being buried amongst ten different stickies. Potentially, we'll throw some redirects to it in other subs.
If this idea takes off, I can see porting it to other formats, and if we can get some support from Hannes, potentially a frontpage link. But it's going to need community support to get this rolling. If you're interested in that, contact me. If you have any other ideas of how to address this, please post them here.
Not that I support this, but if you believe that MTGS not attractive to pro players, this is a major source of it. Netdecking is part of the competitive scene.A big, big, big part. And yet netdecking is held in open contempt and hostility. Not just netdecking, but "unfun"/"boring" tactics, "I refuse to play powerful/expensive cards because", "competitive players are jerks" comments, "cheap", "competitive gaming will be the death of magic", "conceding is cheating!" "asking for a win is cheating!" "borrowing cards is cheating" "X (that isn't against the rules) is cheating!" and the like. Make "Playing to win" by Sirlin a required reading, and anyone going against the spirit of that article actively discouraged.
Good articles won't help the image of the site if a significant portion of the userbase derides people who look to the internet for ideas/decks.
"Hey, there's a great article about deck X on the front page--"
"Pshaw, netdeckers. You have to come up with your own deck, otherwise you have no skill!"
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Just in the last week, I've seen threads with the gist of:
You're an inferior player if you don't make your own deck
You're "that guy who cares too much about winning" if you call a judge
You're a superior player if you refuse to play the cards that everyone else is playing
These threads are not indicative of an attitude conducive to discussion of professional-level magic.
I don't think this is something that can be solved simply by gentle nudging. It's going to require the mod staff to actually clamp down on those kinds of discussions, which will in turn lead to even more people complaining about how their "Internet forum rights" are being violated.
So if making the site more pro-friendly is your goal, then I believe it can be done. I just don't think you're going to like what has to be done to get it there.
I'm pretty sure no-one goes into competitive sections and complains about netdeckers. I think as a competitive person, you just need to be more thick-skinned about it when posting outside of the competitive sections of this forum.
Its important to welcome all types of players to MTGS. I have no problem with the desire to become a more competitive hub, all that really requires is sterner moderation of the competitive sections in regard to budget talk and the like. More articles would be desirable as well. Clamping down on casual talk outside of competitive sections of the site just isn't going to happen.
My wife was on MTV with this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUutIZg2EpU
That's an interesting take.
As to the forums themselves, I'm not sure whether we want to try to make them more accommodating to discussion at a professional or semi-professional level. I know we have several players and moderators with Pro experience on their resume, I did a short stint last year myself, but forums really aren't very conducive to generating useful information at that level. It's all public access, publicly visible, and it requires playtesting, expertise, and a fair amount of creativity to give effective deck-building advice. I think that sort of forum-based discussion is best-suited for newer players. I've done some activities like Deck Clinic work in the past elsewhere, but you really don't see a lot of high profile players who are interested in that kind of community engagement, and I've never really had any kind of effective deck-building advice come from a forum thread. Occasionally from article comments, that's it.
While vilifying netdecking certainly is a tad ridiculous, to a certain extent, there's some value to the idea that pure net-decking isn't necessarily the easiest or most effective path to success. I think the last few years have demonstrated how increasingly important innovation is, and how rapidly decklists require updates to account for changes. Certainly, none of my own Top 8 finishes came from paying undo attention to other players' lists, except as potential adversaries or very crude starting points.
I could possibly see some encouragement towards vilifying either netdecking or home-brewing as potential spam if bickering over that has become highly prevalent and interferes with having productive conversations, but truthfully I'm not very concerned with implementing Nazi-mod restrictions on the ideas people can hold about net-decking or home-brewing. Really, both approaches are simply tools, and many players are more adept at one or the other. But bludgeoning people into holding that view doesn't seem very feasible.
I'm more interested in providing information that visitors to the site can use, whether they post in the standard forums or not. Things that will draw people to the site, and increase traffic, whether in the MTG forums, the front page, or simply in general. Although perhaps, having this kind of resource available and well-updated may serve to increase the availability of cutting-edge decklists to help springboard discussion on relevant topics.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyAgain, the only time I would want to see that sort of thing get hit by an infraction is if it's actually interfering with someone trying to have a productive conversation. Otherwise, I'd rather not play the role of the thought police.
In my playgroup, MTGS is ridiculed. (For context, we have several strong players with pro tour experience and GP t8s.) It's well-known among them that I am a frequent poster on the site and I get made fun of for it even though I don't post in the competitive sections of the site. Who knows what they'll say now that I'm a mod!
More to the point, the idea of having a small number of users with a pulse on the metagame to act as a continually-updating resource, on the other hand, would be more realistic. The Gauntlet thread(s?) are a good start to this from what I can see. Allowing the discussion to continue mostly as it is, but with a stronger focus on the staff's side on keeping the Gauntlet threads up-to date (I am speaking without really knowing what goes on in there) as well as expanding such resources would be my vote.
As you say, Azrael, there usually is not that much to be gained from forum discussions on decks. Higher-level players, in my experience, rely on each other and their own network to do testing and brainstorming, not a website. Thus, trying to force the forum population to act that way seems counterproductive. Obviously disruptive behavior should be moderated aggressively, but trying to cater to a crowd that, percentage wise, is largely non-existent here seems like a fool's errand.
there are a large number of casual players who have a hostile attitude towards competitive players. they consider competitive magic to be unfun and against the spirit of what they like about the game. there are also a large number of competitive players who are not interested in casual magic discussion and come to this site for real competitive strategy talk. they can become frustrated when this talk is hard to come by and often lash out at less competitive players to vent that frustration. this creates a vicious cycle.
my perception of this problem is that the root of it is that the two groups want different things from the game and want different kinds of discussion. when their discussions "cross-streams" in a public thread it basically ruins the thread. the casual players who were discussing funny/interesting/budget things get irritated that a competitive player dismisses their discussion because it is a non-competitive. they then try to hound out the competitive players by insulting competitive magic generally. the competitive player feels annoyed and leaves the website and spreads the "bad reputation" of MTGS to his other competitive gaming friends.
the casual players and competitive players must be separated so they don't cross-streams. for example, the competitive subsection of the Standard forum is actually very good. its tightly moderated and its purpose is clearly labeled. the players who choose to post there know what they're posting about and nobody crosses-streams. the only problem is that the competitive subsection is too small. it can often be just 3 or 4 active posters talking with each other for a few days at a time with the occasional drop in from somebody new.
the parts of the site that are not explicitly labeled as competitive are filled with casual players who are very hostile when a competitive player comes and begins discussing things competitively. it makes the vast majority of this site almost intolerable for a competitive player.
my suggestion is that the community as a whole calls a truce. the vicious cycle has to be broken. the mod/admin staff can enforce this truce by warning/infracting the hostile "get out" posts that casual players often make and by warning/infracting the condescending "casual is bad, you guys suck" posts that competitive players often make. i realize that i've been guilty of the latter (condescending posts) at times myself. i probably should have been warned.
i would also suggest that just as some forums have dedicated competitive subsections, we also add dedicated casual subsections to the forums. standard has a budget discussion subforum but it is basically unused. it also has a forum called "standard deck construction" which is de facto a casual deck subforum but is not explicitly labeled as such so it is often a clash point for casual vs. competitive. it should probably be labeled as a casual subforum.
Anyway, if time allows it, I wouldn't mind getting more invested in producing competitive articles and such for the site. I'm a pretty high level player myself, and could write set reviews (I've written some of these in the past, and they have been quite well-received), and tournament reports from pro-level events. I've also been thinking about a "Field journal" (like Craig Jones had, several years ago) where I maintain a live blog from the event, and respond to questions from users on the fly. This is only possible if there is free wireless internet access on the site, of course, but at American Pro Tours there usually is.
I could get behind this. *nods*
Admin lounge'd.
Those are good ideas, Sene.
So, where is the issue? The Magic General forum?
It happens all the time in the Standard Subforums. Whole threads about it. Go check out the thread on Grafdifgger Cage. A nice highlight:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7813118&postcount=149
yes. Magic General is very problematic. as is Standard General and Legacy General. Modern General will probably become problematic soon too as more people start to play that format. The Rumor Mill and its subforums (in particular new card discussion) is possibly the single worst part of the site in this respect.
the clearly labeled parts of the site are very good. the ambiguously defined general parts of the site have alot of this conflict. i think its obvious that labeling is extremely helpful.
Yet it happens.
I think that's probably the forum most indicative of this, yes.
You need to find a way to harness the Hive Mind in a way that will benefit you. Creating a "private group" forum is one way of starting the process, another way would be building respectibility. You have to get grinders/pro players to start talking about the competitive forums here once you have something established. Weeding out noise, then establishing an image seems like a logical way of becoming a better "competitive" forum.
EDH:
UBGMimeoplasm (Reanimator Control)
WGBURProgenitus (Dream Halls//Good Stuff)
RNorin, the Wary (Metaddited Gaka List)
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Perhaps there is something I'm missing of course and I understand I don't have alot of pull but thats my $0.02 on the matter.
this pretty much sums up my take, but I'm going to elaborate a bit my precise views.
Some people netdeck, some people don't. Yet each side feels it needs to ridicule the other just for playing different. I honestly don't get why people feel so entitled to put down others play styles, but whatever.
After reading the thread it seems that the "general" magic forums are where this is happening the most. Look, this is a forum on the internet, people are going to be self entitled idiots and argue. If it's that big of a problem then why not make it an infraction to blatantly attack the "other side" (aka casuals vs competitive, netdecking vs home-brew). It may make the site a little more harsh, but apparently if we've managed to start the topic here, it is a problem.
I like the idea of each competitive forum having a "private" section for the pros and hardcore players, but what does that do to cut down on the hate in the rest of the forums? Nothing at all.
There's my take on this.
(Also known as Xenphire)
All your really asking for is better moderation of the competitive aspect of the forums. If a user is posting a decklist in Competitive and taunting it as the best deck for his meta with zero evidence what his meta is or input on to why it destroys his meta, then that should be infractable as spam in the competitive subforum.
If you have a problem with general users posting competitive hate outside of competitive sections, again, grow a thicker skin and ignore them.
My wife was on MTV with this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUutIZg2EpU
It's not only better moderation. It's also the userbase attitude in general and users showing some personal accountability for the quality of these forums beyond the moderators babysitting them. Many users here come and post because they can, because they don't feel obligated to add any real discussion and because they don't care and it inhibits intelligent development and discussion for those of us that do care. The user with the deck posing as the best in his meta is only one type of example. The posts I'm talking about aren't necessarily intractable because they add something in regards to the deck but continuously break a chain of acknowledgment that disallows for real brainstorming or thinking. Posts like these back to back to back, appear to offer discussion, but are actually purely theoretical, have no testing, or not actually paying attention to the point of the post and adding unneeded clutter and irrelevant banter. Could a mod take care of this? Sure. Could users just help to bring a better sense of context and higher quality posts without ignoring others trying to start a real discussion having done actual testing or get real feedback? That'd be even better, and possibly the only way to do that is to separate the ones who will from the ones who won't because the ones who won't on an open forum like this are of a number overwhelmingly more so than those who will.
Player A: Having the random thought "X card could be good in Y", posts such and doesn't add anything.
Player B: "I thought X card could be good in Y and tested it, and here are the results and my thoughts on the pros and cons of using X card" adds something of value.
If we want a legitimate competitive forum, it needs to start with the users, and filtering users may be the only chance to get that started this late in the game.
(Also known as Xenphire)
I don't think there's a quick or elegant solution to the problem of making the forums at large a competitive resource, as mentioned above, but having leadership that encourages proactive discussion, developing a core of competitive/regular players through the method Sene described, and offering resources to draw players in, should be steps in the right direction for the site. It can be much better than it is - not PT level advice, but the quality of decks that can take down an FNM consistently. For most of the magic community, that's a reasonable service, along with the other ideas we're discussing.
If filtering content is necessary or desired, that may be something that could be incorporated into Sene's idea. Free admittance, but aggressively delete content that doesn't meet the bar.
(Also known as Xenphire)