If you have questions, comments or concerns about the Standard Forum rules, how they're enforced, or the forum setup, please post them here. The Standard moderating team will do our best to answer, and to fix the problem (if there is one).
Are we allowed to post about "Help pick the deck for me to play" in the Standard Competitive forum root. (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/forumdisplay.php?f=714) As long as the decks we post for help about are competitive?
I just want to say I'm really glad to see metamorph in on the competitive subforums list. Don't you think CorpT is a little risky though? He's got some serious rage issues (I guess I do too sometimes though, but I'm not looking to oversee anything).
EDIT: Another quick question. There's a particular primer I'd like to write in developing competitive. Is there a way I can reserve it until I would have time to write it, most likely thursday?
Are we allowed to post about "Help pick the deck for me to play" in the Standard Competitive forum root. (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/forumdisplay.php?f=714) As long as the decks we post for help about are competitive?
I'd prefer if we still use the old thread in this forum, here.
I'd prefer if we still use the old thread in this forum, here.
Ok I will. It was just that when I posted there the replies would never come. Sometimes they would but you would get a lot of non-competitive replies. They are trying to help and all which is not bad though at least. Competitive threads seem to get a lot more traffic from the primarily competitive players as well.
Suggestion: Maybe a similar thread but in the competitive sections root?
No question, just a comment/concern. I really hope I'm wrong but I feel that the new setup is going to backfire. Making people have to jump through hoops (no matter how trivial) in having to apply, wait, and get approved before posting is going to result in a lot of people just not posting. Less posts, less discussion, less ideas and voices. But maybe that's part of the goal, I don't know.
I also hope it doesn't mean that the non-competitive people aren't allowed to discuss "competitive" decks in the non-competitive forum, because that would be disappointing. But I can also see how it might create problems if a deck starts out not being competitive and then becomes competitive. Guess we'll see how this gets handled if it ever happens.
I do like the new setup with more decks labelled as "Established". That's a good change.
And the non-competitive people will be allowed to discuss competitive decks in Standard Deck Creation. I'll make official threads for those soon enough, but we just had a rather long downtime and some issues that needed attention, so I haven't been able to do it yet.
No question, just a comment/concern. I really hope I'm wrong but I feel that the new setup is going to backfire. Making people have to jump through hoops (no matter how trivial) in having to apply, wait, and get approved before posting is going to result in a lot of people just not posting. Less posts, less discussion, less ideas and voices. But maybe that's part of the goal, I don't know.
I also hope it doesn't mean that the non-competitive people aren't allowed to discuss "competitive" decks in the non-competitive forum, because that would be disappointing. But I can also see how it might create problems if a deck starts out not being competitive and then becomes competitive. Guess we'll see how this gets handled if it ever happens.
I do like the new setup with more decks labelled as "Established". That's a good change.
I agree with you. I'm looking for a new place to post where discussion isn't stiffed, and I get to be the judge of the quality of the ideas that are posted instead of some moderator.
The threat of getting your status removed will keep people from posting sometimes radical new ideas, which means that instead of being a form full of a few gem ideas, and tons of bad ones. You'll just get good ideas that are past there prime.
Competitive Magic players want all view points, and then to analysis those view points... not just already vetted view points. That's how you get a competitive edge.
For example Spectral Flight. Someone posted running this in Delver Blade instead of blades a few weeks ago. They were called out and the idea was dismissed by the "competitive" players... Woops, seems like that was actually a sound idea.
One thing I am unsure of is exactly what is required to be a person who can post in the competitive Standard subgroup... say I'm a player who's looking to build a build of a competitive standard deck, yet has not played competitive standard in years (and even then, "competitive" referred to a good placing at an FNM (albeit with a deck that could easily be seen at a Pro Tour)). In all reality, when this standard deck is built, it will never see the light of more than an FNM. Where is that person's resource on these forums to look into such matters?
Perhaps this will be an issue that will be solved over time, but currently many of the standard threads are looking more than a little anemic. However, someone who actually wants to build a competitive standard deck shouldn't have to wait for interest to be put in by members who are deemed "competitive" just to see what people are currently running.
Is there already a method in place by which MTGS is planning on adding more "meat" to some of these lifeless subforums, or does one just need to wait for the demand to come?
Also, is the current system in place moreso to allow only tournament-viable players to discuss decks, or is it more to create a system by which posters are now accountable and made aware of their actions before joining? Aka, could I, as a relative standard newbie, request membership on the grounds of wanting to ask competitive questions, or would I need to be an expert to contribute (and be dependent on these experts' contributions to have my questions answered)?
No one is being denied entry to the Competitive section. Only if you get in and make non-competitive posts would your membership possibly be revoked. It's more about an attitude than any experience. If you go in complaining about net-deckers and suggesting non-competitive because they are fun, it probably won't work out. If you go in with the attitude of winning is the most important, you'll do fine. Regardless of experience with the format.
No one is being denied entry to the Competitive section. Only if you get in and make non-competitive posts would your membership possibly be revoked. It's more about an attitude than any experience. If you go in complaining about net-deckers and suggesting non-competitive because they are fun, it probably won't work out. If you go in with the attitude of winning is the most important, you'll do fine. Regardless of experience with the format.
Alright. I might make a suggestion you highlight that in the posts on standard competitive forum membership, because it was obviously a gray area to me. Thanks!
I think I'm going to look for a new forum. The heavy handed, over moderation of this place is just terrible. All this is going to do is stifle new ideas/suggestions because people will be afraid to post any serious, outside the box suggestions ideas because they might get the boot. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Most annoying part is the removal of all the old standard threads to archives
I can understand doing it after a block rotation, but now? It just makes a load of useful information harder to find.
I think I'm going to look for a new forum. The heavy handed, over moderation of this place is just terrible. All this is going to do is stifle new ideas/suggestions because people will be afraid to post any serious, outside the box suggestions ideas because they might get the boot. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Care to give some examples of heavy handed moderation stifling new ideas?
I was going to mention that the idea came with an elitist aftertaste in my private message to the competitive mods, but I did not think it was deemed relevant. In all honesty this could truly be a great undertaking for the forums...or be a big flop based on reception. The idea of success for the structure of the forums is only fueled by players who are not of the competitive mindset considering the competitive perspective; and requesting to join a competitive environment group takes a bit more thought on what you want to bring to the game and what you want to take away.
My thing is...if you are on the MTGsalvation forums already, you want to learn how to better yourself at the game, so in theory every member has a chance to coexist in this new standard competitive environment. I would like to suggest something.
As a college student studying psychology, and a player who enjoys and loathes thinking outside the competitive box; I think there should be a checklist/criteria that should be followed and posted for each suggested card.
-To show that the person suggesting the card has considered everything, and produce points on that card so that controversy on card choice and opinion is lessened.
-To show the environment in which this card is actually profitable in, for the sake of discussion
I realize that there are many different ways to actually play a deck under normal circumstances (not regarding situations that force you into a role of aggressive/controlling, mind you). But the idea that there is one solid way to play a deck, in a world of different viewpoints on the same deck, changes the deck into many different variants (as you have seen from professional players), and the cards they chose in their lists show that.
As a player who detests situations where people of intelligence get into idiotic pissing contests, I have seen too many internet fights over something as small as localized metagame and opinion...all due to lack of information; and I thought I should add my input on an attempt to reduce that occurance
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
I think I'm going to look for a new forum. The heavy handed, over moderation of this place is just terrible. All this is going to do is stifle new ideas/suggestions because people will be afraid to post any serious, outside the box suggestions ideas because they might get the boot. This is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
I like the mods here, just because alot of forums can de-evolve into flaming and bad ideas, and the mods keep that from happening here. Also, people post ideas outside the box all the time, the only ones that get shut down are the ones that obviously don't work ("I puts my Geralfs Messenger in my 3 color dex with no mana fixing - I've seen this more than once)
And CorpT is right, if you apply, you're in. There is no elitism.
There is definitely no elitism in the sign-up process, that is made very clear in the thread and is a good decision.
I do still disagree that this is necessary or a good idea though. If the problem is with people posting non-competitive ideas in competitive threads, I would rather sift through posts of bad/non-competitive/budget ideas rather than discourage people from posting. If the issue is people complaining about "net-decking" or the like, then the standard warning/banning procedure should be sufficient.
As a college student studying psychology, and a player who enjoys and loathes thinking outside the competitive box; I think there should be a checklist/criteria that should be followed and posted for each suggested card.
-To show that the person suggesting the card has considered everything, and produce points on that card so that controversy on card choice and opinion is lessened.
-To show the environment in which this card is actually profitable in, for the sake of discussion
That's a good criteria for intellectual debate, but not necessarily for a discussion of ideas. If you require that every idea is thoroughly thought out, tested, proven, etc. before ever being mentioned then yes you will get a lot fewer bad ideas posted. You will also get a lot fewer ideas of any sort posted.
The only thing I don't like is that there isn't a direct link from the Forums main page to the Standard Deck Creation section. Now I have to click twice to get where I want instead of just once. Kind of a pain in the rear.
The only thing I don't like is that there isn't a direct link from the Forums main page to the Standard Deck Creation section. Now I have to click twice to get where I want instead of just once. Kind of a pain in the rear.
This is a very valid concern, one that I've been thinking about myself, and made me re-consider that particular setup. We'll do some thinking, and see what we do.
That's a good criteria for intellectual debate, but not necessarily for a discussion of ideas. If you require that every idea is thoroughly thought out, tested, proven, etc. before ever being mentioned then yes you will get a lot fewer bad ideas posted. You will also get a lot fewer ideas of any sort posted.
I see what you are saying, but I was not looking for tested results, I just believe that new ideas could be explained a slightly bit more than what they have been, to remove a fraction of misunderstanding among people involved.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I have in my bag of tricks- Needless to say, someone who wants to play will probably have a deck UB/x Faeries UR Storm XURWB Affinity G Elves UW control
I agree with you. I'm looking for a new place to post where discussion isn't stiffed, and I get to be the judge of the quality of the ideas that are posted instead of some moderator.
The threat of getting your status removed will keep people from posting sometimes radical new ideas, which means that instead of being a form full of a few gem ideas, and tons of bad ones. You'll just get good ideas that are past there prime.
Competitive Magic players want all view points, and then to analysis those view points... not just already vetted view points. That's how you get a competitive edge.
For example Spectral Flight. Someone posted running this in Delver Blade instead of blades a few weeks ago. They were called out and the idea was dismissed by the "competitive" players... Woops, seems like that was actually a sound idea.
I don't think the mods are here to judge the quality of the idea. I think they're here to judge the thought process behind the idea.
Take Spectral Flight: If you had an SCD post explaining that you got the idea because you noticed it was OK in Limited on a Hexproof dude, and it's great on a Geist since it pumps AND gives evasion (important vs. Humans, RG, etc.), and it's in some ways superior to the usual suite of equips because it allows you to curve Geist into SF + 2 open to represent Mana Leak and swing 8 right away, then I think that would be fine.
On the other hand, If you had an SCD post saying, "I can't get my hands on any of the Swords because I'm a poor college student and no one has them for trade, so would this common from Innistrad that I happen to have sitting next to me be a decent replacement?", then that would be grounds for a Mod to intervene.
I have heard vague rumors of a moustache-dispensing vending machine in a distant laundromat, across the street from a tattoo parlor. However, this information is shaky, and time is of the essence.
I don't think the mods are here to judge the quality of the idea. I think they're here to judge the thought process behind the idea.
Take Spectral Flight: If you had an SCD post explaining that you got the idea because you noticed it was OK in Limited on a Hexproof dude, and it's great on a Geist since it pumps AND gives evasion (important vs. Humans, RG, etc.), and it's in some ways superior to the usual suite of equips because it allows you to curve Geist into SF + 2 open to represent Mana Leak and swing 8 right away, then I think that would be fine.
On the other hand, If you had an SCD post saying, "I can't get my hands on any of the Swords because I'm a poor college student and no one has them for trade, so would this common from Innistrad that I happen to have sitting next to me be a decent replacement?", then that would be grounds for a Mod to intervene.
This. A 100 times. A tested, unique idea is to be welcomed. An untested theory crafted or budget idea is not.
Thanks!
EDIT: Another quick question. There's a particular primer I'd like to write in developing competitive. Is there a way I can reserve it until I would have time to write it, most likely thursday?
If you hate the deck, I'm probably playing it!
I'd prefer if we still use the old thread in this forum, here.
Ok I will. It was just that when I posted there the replies would never come. Sometimes they would but you would get a lot of non-competitive replies. They are trying to help and all which is not bad though at least. Competitive threads seem to get a lot more traffic from the primarily competitive players as well.
Suggestion: Maybe a similar thread but in the competitive sections root?
I also hope it doesn't mean that the non-competitive people aren't allowed to discuss "competitive" decks in the non-competitive forum, because that would be disappointing. But I can also see how it might create problems if a deck starts out not being competitive and then becomes competitive. Guess we'll see how this gets handled if it ever happens.
I do like the new setup with more decks labelled as "Established". That's a good change.
And the non-competitive people will be allowed to discuss competitive decks in Standard Deck Creation. I'll make official threads for those soon enough, but we just had a rather long downtime and some issues that needed attention, so I haven't been able to do it yet.
I agree with you. I'm looking for a new place to post where discussion isn't stiffed, and I get to be the judge of the quality of the ideas that are posted instead of some moderator.
The threat of getting your status removed will keep people from posting sometimes radical new ideas, which means that instead of being a form full of a few gem ideas, and tons of bad ones. You'll just get good ideas that are past there prime.
Competitive Magic players want all view points, and then to analysis those view points... not just already vetted view points. That's how you get a competitive edge.
For example Spectral Flight. Someone posted running this in Delver Blade instead of blades a few weeks ago. They were called out and the idea was dismissed by the "competitive" players... Woops, seems like that was actually a sound idea.
[Legacy]
ANT
Imperial Painter
Perhaps this will be an issue that will be solved over time, but currently many of the standard threads are looking more than a little anemic. However, someone who actually wants to build a competitive standard deck shouldn't have to wait for interest to be put in by members who are deemed "competitive" just to see what people are currently running.
Is there already a method in place by which MTGS is planning on adding more "meat" to some of these lifeless subforums, or does one just need to wait for the demand to come?
Also, is the current system in place moreso to allow only tournament-viable players to discuss decks, or is it more to create a system by which posters are now accountable and made aware of their actions before joining? Aka, could I, as a relative standard newbie, request membership on the grounds of wanting to ask competitive questions, or would I need to be an expert to contribute (and be dependent on these experts' contributions to have my questions answered)?
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Alright. I might make a suggestion you highlight that in the posts on standard competitive forum membership, because it was obviously a gray area to me. Thanks!
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
I can understand doing it after a block rotation, but now? It just makes a load of useful information harder to find.
Care to give some examples of heavy handed moderation stifling new ideas?
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=398345
And CorpT is right, if you apply, you're in. There is no elitism.
My thing is...if you are on the MTGsalvation forums already, you want to learn how to better yourself at the game, so in theory every member has a chance to coexist in this new standard competitive environment. I would like to suggest something.
As a college student studying psychology, and a player who enjoys and loathes thinking outside the competitive box; I think there should be a checklist/criteria that should be followed and posted for each suggested card.
-To show that the person suggesting the card has considered everything, and produce points on that card so that controversy on card choice and opinion is lessened.
-To show the environment in which this card is actually profitable in, for the sake of discussion
I realize that there are many different ways to actually play a deck under normal circumstances (not regarding situations that force you into a role of aggressive/controlling, mind you). But the idea that there is one solid way to play a deck, in a world of different viewpoints on the same deck, changes the deck into many different variants (as you have seen from professional players), and the cards they chose in their lists show that.
As a player who detests situations where people of intelligence get into idiotic pissing contests, I have seen too many internet fights over something as small as localized metagame and opinion...all due to lack of information; and I thought I should add my input on an attempt to reduce that occurance
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
I like the mods here, just because alot of forums can de-evolve into flaming and bad ideas, and the mods keep that from happening here. Also, people post ideas outside the box all the time, the only ones that get shut down are the ones that obviously don't work ("I puts my Geralfs Messenger in my 3 color dex with no mana fixing - I've seen this more than once)
There is definitely no elitism in the sign-up process, that is made very clear in the thread and is a good decision.
I do still disagree that this is necessary or a good idea though. If the problem is with people posting non-competitive ideas in competitive threads, I would rather sift through posts of bad/non-competitive/budget ideas rather than discourage people from posting. If the issue is people complaining about "net-decking" or the like, then the standard warning/banning procedure should be sufficient.
That's a good criteria for intellectual debate, but not necessarily for a discussion of ideas. If you require that every idea is thoroughly thought out, tested, proven, etc. before ever being mentioned then yes you will get a lot fewer bad ideas posted. You will also get a lot fewer ideas of any sort posted.
The only thing I don't like is that there isn't a direct link from the Forums main page to the Standard Deck Creation section. Now I have to click twice to get where I want instead of just once. Kind of a pain in the rear.
This is a very valid concern, one that I've been thinking about myself, and made me re-consider that particular setup. We'll do some thinking, and see what we do.
I see what you are saying, but I was not looking for tested results, I just believe that new ideas could be explained a slightly bit more than what they have been, to remove a fraction of misunderstanding among people involved.
UB/x Faeries
UR Storm
XURWB Affinity
G Elves
UW control
I don't think the mods are here to judge the quality of the idea. I think they're here to judge the thought process behind the idea.
Take Spectral Flight: If you had an SCD post explaining that you got the idea because you noticed it was OK in Limited on a Hexproof dude, and it's great on a Geist since it pumps AND gives evasion (important vs. Humans, RG, etc.), and it's in some ways superior to the usual suite of equips because it allows you to curve Geist into SF + 2 open to represent Mana Leak and swing 8 right away, then I think that would be fine.
On the other hand, If you had an SCD post saying, "I can't get my hands on any of the Swords because I'm a poor college student and no one has them for trade, so would this common from Innistrad that I happen to have sitting next to me be a decent replacement?", then that would be grounds for a Mod to intervene.
This. A 100 times. A tested, unique idea is to be welcomed. An untested theory crafted or budget idea is not.