You're still speaking as if you broke a rule that you didn't read. That wasn't what happened. You tried to invoke a rule that didn't exist. It seems pretty straightforward and realistic that you double-check the rules before telling other people that they shouldn't do something.
Decided to go back and look through the entire post, to clarify exactly what happened.
So . . . do you understand why I might have been confused? I came from a forum that said "NO ROTATION TALK". One of the first posts I saw in the new forum had a mod saying "better not discuss the rotation". Then, it turns out Kijin has his own magical rules.
Sacramento Tzar, different The Game forums have their own rules regarding spoilers because that's what works for them. I can completely understand your point about some people maybe not wanting to see spoilers before the official release. However, for competitive formats, being able to identify which new cards are playable is huge. Why shouldn't forums where that discussion isn't an issue be forbidden to have it just because of few people go 'omg spoilers nooooo!!!'?
You can't just 'demand' that it be uniform across The Game forums. Why should, say, Legacy and Vintage be force to halt spoiler discussions, something they've done for a long time, because a few posters, who they probably haven't heard of, had 'trouble' going between Extended, Casual, and Standard?
So . . . do you understand why I might have been confused? I came from a forum that said "NO ROTATION TALK". One of the first posts I saw in the new forum had a mod saying "better not discuss the rotation". Then, it turns out Kijin has his own magical rules.
J
I'd hardly consider my post a "warning", more of a suggestion that discussing optimal decklists before the whole set is spoiled is generally a waste of time on everyones part. If it was a warning it would look like this.
I can see where you got confused though. Different sections of the forum have their own set of rules, and Standard's won't always be the same as Extended, Type 1, etc. It's all about reading the stickies, or PMing the mods. I answer all my PMs regarding forum rules.
Sacramento Tzar, different The Game forums have their own rules regarding spoilers because that's what works for them. I can completely understand your point about some people maybe not wanting to see spoilers before the official release. However, for competitive formats, being able to identify which new cards are playable is huge. Why shouldn't forums where that discussion isn't an issue be forbidden to have it just because of few people go 'omg spoilers nooooo!!!'?
I don't understand how the release of a new set is somehow more huge for eternal formats where most cards are unplayable but is undervalued in a format like standard which is defined by the few sets in it. Standard is very competative and not less than the eternal formats.
You can't just 'demand' that it be uniform across The Game forums. Why should, say, Legacy and Vintage be force to halt spoiler discussions, something they've done for a long time, because a few posters, who they probably haven't heard of, had 'trouble' going between Extended, Casual, and Standard?
Let's get something really crystal clear here. I'm not "demanding" anything. I am politely questioning the current policy in hopes that it might be simplified and/or clarified.
If the New Card Discussion is the default place to talk about standard, casual, and extended uses for new cards before they are offically releases, then why not label is as such? That way it's clearly writen in various stickies where such discussions are permited and where it isn't. Legacy and Vintage can instantly talk about the few cards that will impact them in their own seperate threads and the threads in New Card Discussion can continue to be the confusing megamix of people trying to talk about the impact of a card on multiple formats at the same time.
I don't understand how the release of a new set is somehow more huge for eternal formats where most cards are unplayable but is undervalued in a format like standard which is defined by the few sets in it. Standard is very competative and not less than the eternal formats.
Let's get something really crystal clear here. I'm not "demanding" anything. I am politely questioning the current policy in hopes that it might be simplified and/or clarified.
]If the New Card Discussion is the default place to talk about standard, casual, and extended uses for new cards before they are offically releases, then why not label is as such? That way it's clearly writen in various stickies where such discussions are permited and where it isn't. Legacy and Vintage can instantly talk about the few cards that will impact them in their own seperate threads and the threads in New Card Discussion can continue to be the confusing megamix of people trying to talk about the impact of a card on multiple formats at the same time.
BTW, I just went through most of the various game format boards looking for which ones discussion about spoiled cards was allowed and only two of them even mention the subject at all. Specifically I looked at the sticky threads in the main part of each forum because that is where I expected such rules to be. Standard forbid any such talk and EDH had a seperate thread for them. Maybe I missed where the subject was talked about in the other forums. That said, according to this thread that board is really the only place that such discussion is supposed to take place in and even that thread only mentions Standard's ban on talking about the cards ahead of time. If the original poster got warned for posting about the new cards in casual (one of the formats that has no such sticky), then I can sortof understand his frustration.
If I'm allowed to drop in. I can't speak for other sections' reasons to allow or forbid discussion of rumors, but atleast present my reasoning for Casual:
The forum has an explicite section to dicuss content that's not yet released, namely New Card Discussion in the Rumor Mill. As Casual hasn't something like a defined meta, discussions about cards' implications for a meta / archetype fall flat and decks built around an awesome card just seen in the spoiler, belong - as far as I understand it - into NCD.
It's not in Casual's rules because it's not a frequent problem and the few decks that get posted, are moved without a warning. During M11 there were too many decks to be redirected, so I wrote an announcement and after that warned a few for disobeying/not reading that.
I haven't yet had complaints.
I don't know if it is 100% necessary, but I really don't enjoy the deck spam in the New Card Discussion forums. I agree with keeping the formats the way they are until we have the whole spoiler, or pre-release or whatever the rules are, but I hate looking for the threads on discussing new cards only to see 15 people posting some deck they think will break the meta in half.
Is there enough people who think like me to justify putting another sub-forum in the rumor mill for Rumor Mill Decks?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I'd hardly consider my post a "warning" . . . If it was a warning it would look like this.
So I don't have to listen to mods when they don't post in modtext? Seriously, what is the point of that statement. You corrected someone and told them not to talk about the rotation. Is it out of the realm of possibility that you might actually correct someone who misunderstands a rule without resorting to warnings and infractions?
more of a suggestion that discussing optimal decklists before the whole set is spoiled is generally a waste of time on everyones part.
You're right. I completely agree. And my point is, that hadn't changed in the few weeks before the second incident, where Kijin decided that no longer mattered. The relevance of competitive tournaments aside, it's still pointless to discuss that. If you go back and read the posts, the person I corrected was asserting that Doran was a dead deck because of all the cards it was going to lose, and how the meta was going to shift and Thoughtseize was going to lose value and Cryptic was going to gain value. As you point out, that kind of discussion is a waste of time until we know what else is in the new set. And yet . . . somehow thats the discussion a different mod wanted.
I can see where you got confused though. Different sections of the forum have their own set of rules, and Standard's won't always be the same as Extended, Type 1, etc. It's all about reading the stickies, or PMing the mods. I answer all my PMs regarding forum rules.
You still refuse to get it. I came to a new forum, saw a mod enforce a rule, and assumed that rule was a rule. Should I PM you before every post I make, just to make sure I don't misunderstand the rules?
Saying "PM me if you have any questions" completely misses the point. The point is, the way these forums are set up, it's easy to feel like you've read all the rules, and are following them, and then have some overzealous mod smack you down anyway.
Is it out of the realm of possibility that you might actually correct someone who misunderstands a rule without resorting to warnings and infractions?
Not at all. But modtext doesn't have to be attached to a warning or infraction either. I sometimes fire off a blanket verbal warning in a thread I'm concerned about, and will always put that in mod text. In fact, literally seconds ago, I modtexted a post to give a verbal warning instead of a warning/infraction, because I didn't feel like it was deserved this time.
If I expect to be listened to about a forum issue, I use modtext. No question. Plain text is too easy to gloss over.
Edit: And why are both of our posts in subsections under Rusted Knight's post? Weird...
Not at all. But modtext doesn't have to be attached to a warning or infraction either. I sometimes fire off a blanket verbal warning in a thread I'm concerned about, and will always put that in mod text. In fact, literally seconds ago, I modtexted a post to give a verbal warning instead of a warning/infraction, because I didn't feel like it was deserved this time.
If I expect to be listened to about a forum issue, I use modtext. No question. Plain text is too easy to gloss over.
So again, you're saying I dont' have to listen to mods when they don't use modtext. Got it.
So again, you're saying I dont' have to listen to mods when they don't use modtext. Got it.
J
You know that's not what I said. Why should anyone take you seriously when you put words in other people's mouths?
Anyway, I welcome you to run with that out into the rest of the forum and see how long it flies with a global, admin, or whoever's in charge of whatever forum I don't have power in. Have fun!
You know that's not what I said. Why should anyone take you seriously when you put words in other people's mouths?
Anyway, I welcome you to run with that out into the rest of the forum and see how long it flies with a global, admin, or whoever's in charge of whatever forum I don't have power in. Have fun!
Seriously, you and Laquatus appear to be arguing that while he came into a forum and corrected someone, telling them that they shouldn't talk about that, that it would've been perfectly OK for that person to continue talking about the rotation, because it wasn't actually against the rules, and was just "more of a suggestion". The argument seems to be that since Laquatus didn't use modtext, he wasn't enforcing a rule or issuing a warning, just making a suggestion.
If that is the case, how else am I to tell the difference between a mod enforcing a rule or issuing a warning, and just making a suggestion? The distinction appears to be the text you use.
I can justify iRebel's post as non-spam for the reason that he, a Global Moderator, is stating his support for what a subordinate section moderator. While a one-word reply is usually spam, this seems to be a reasonable use.
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
I particularly liked the one where Blutsau clarified that "one word posts count as spam"
Yes, your post carries more weight because you're a moderator, but that doesn't mean you're exempt from the rules. How hard would it be to say something like "Just wanted to confirm that Cabal_Chan is correct, in case anyone wanted input from a Global Mod."
Sure, you can do whatever you want. But if you want respect from the people you smack down on a regular basis, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard.
----------
Just to clarify, the official response from the mod staff is still that everything is fine, even though two different mods were selectively enforcing a rule that doesn't exist in a forum? I just don't understand how you can claim that Ambassador Laquatus' post doesn't convey the impression that rotation talk is not permitted.
This thread is not about whether iRebel should receive an infraction for a post. This thread is about "Inconsistent rules about rotation talk." Please keep discussion on that topic.
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. :|
This thread is not about whether iRebel should receive an infraction for a post. This thread is about "Inconsistent rules about rotation talk." Please keep discussion on that topic.
I keep trying, but since the mods are ignoring the actual proof I posted of mods selectively enforcing rules, it's hard to do that. Would you care to respond to that?
EDIT: So where is the appropriate place to talk about mods who think they're above the rules, by the way? Should I start another thread for that, so it's in the right thread? Somehow I feel like that'd get closed pretty fast.
I keep trying, but since the mods are ignoring the actual proof I posted of mods selectively enforcing rules, it's hard to do that. Would you care to respond to that?
Selectively enforcing what? Spoiler discussions?
Cause I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out that each Game forum handles spoiler discussion differently.
Cause I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out that each Game forum handles spoiler discussion differently.
I'm pretty sure I got you to agree with the idea of how each game forum handles spoiler discussion differently should be spelled out in a sticky in each forum. Why does it now look like you are arguing otherwise?
And I would like to point out that in the New Card Discussion Board there is a thread where a mod specifically spells out how that board should be the ONLY board that posters should talk about new cards.
This thread is not about whether iRebel should receive an infraction for a post. This thread is about "Inconsistent rules about rotation talk." Please keep discussion on that topic.
But that matters, truly. Mods should not be allowed to get away with things that are spam just because they're mods.
I'd make a thread to push the point, but I can more or less guarantee you'd just lock it.
^This
Decided to go back and look through the entire post, to clarify exactly what happened.
Ambassador Laquatus warning that we are better off not discussing rotation
Kijin declaring that rotation talk is fine
So . . . do you understand why I might have been confused? I came from a forum that said "NO ROTATION TALK". One of the first posts I saw in the new forum had a mod saying "better not discuss the rotation". Then, it turns out Kijin has his own magical rules.
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
You can't just 'demand' that it be uniform across The Game forums. Why should, say, Legacy and Vintage be force to halt spoiler discussions, something they've done for a long time, because a few posters, who they probably haven't heard of, had 'trouble' going between Extended, Casual, and Standard?
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
I'd hardly consider my post a "warning", more of a suggestion that discussing optimal decklists before the whole set is spoiled is generally a waste of time on everyones part. If it was a warning it would look like this.
I can see where you got confused though. Different sections of the forum have their own set of rules, and Standard's won't always be the same as Extended, Type 1, etc. It's all about reading the stickies, or PMing the mods. I answer all my PMs regarding forum rules.
I don't understand how the release of a new set is somehow more huge for eternal formats where most cards are unplayable but is undervalued in a format like standard which is defined by the few sets in it. Standard is very competative and not less than the eternal formats.
Let's get something really crystal clear here. I'm not "demanding" anything. I am politely questioning the current policy in hopes that it might be simplified and/or clarified.
If the New Card Discussion is the default place to talk about standard, casual, and extended uses for new cards before they are offically releases, then why not label is as such? That way it's clearly writen in various stickies where such discussions are permited and where it isn't. Legacy and Vintage can instantly talk about the few cards that will impact them in their own seperate threads and the threads in New Card Discussion can continue to be the confusing megamix of people trying to talk about the impact of a card on multiple formats at the same time.
I've already explained this.
That is a good point.
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
I don't know if it is 100% necessary, but I really don't enjoy the deck spam in the New Card Discussion forums. I agree with keeping the formats the way they are until we have the whole spoiler, or pre-release or whatever the rules are, but I hate looking for the threads on discussing new cards only to see 15 people posting some deck they think will break the meta in half.
Is there enough people who think like me to justify putting another sub-forum in the rumor mill for Rumor Mill Decks?
So I don't have to listen to mods when they don't post in modtext? Seriously, what is the point of that statement. You corrected someone and told them not to talk about the rotation. Is it out of the realm of possibility that you might actually correct someone who misunderstands a rule without resorting to warnings and infractions?
You're right. I completely agree. And my point is, that hadn't changed in the few weeks before the second incident, where Kijin decided that no longer mattered. The relevance of competitive tournaments aside, it's still pointless to discuss that. If you go back and read the posts, the person I corrected was asserting that Doran was a dead deck because of all the cards it was going to lose, and how the meta was going to shift and Thoughtseize was going to lose value and Cryptic was going to gain value. As you point out, that kind of discussion is a waste of time until we know what else is in the new set. And yet . . . somehow thats the discussion a different mod wanted.
You still refuse to get it. I came to a new forum, saw a mod enforce a rule, and assumed that rule was a rule. Should I PM you before every post I make, just to make sure I don't misunderstand the rules?
Saying "PM me if you have any questions" completely misses the point. The point is, the way these forums are set up, it's easy to feel like you've read all the rules, and are following them, and then have some overzealous mod smack you down anyway.
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
Not at all. But modtext doesn't have to be attached to a warning or infraction either. I sometimes fire off a blanket verbal warning in a thread I'm concerned about, and will always put that in mod text. In fact, literally seconds ago, I modtexted a post to give a verbal warning instead of a warning/infraction, because I didn't feel like it was deserved this time.
If I expect to be listened to about a forum issue, I use modtext. No question. Plain text is too easy to gloss over.
Edit: And why are both of our posts in subsections under Rusted Knight's post? Weird...
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
So again, you're saying I dont' have to listen to mods when they don't use modtext. Got it.
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
You know that's not what I said. Why should anyone take you seriously when you put words in other people's mouths?
Anyway, I welcome you to run with that out into the rest of the forum and see how long it flies with a global, admin, or whoever's in charge of whatever forum I don't have power in. Have fun!
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
Seriously, you and Laquatus appear to be arguing that while he came into a forum and corrected someone, telling them that they shouldn't talk about that, that it would've been perfectly OK for that person to continue talking about the rotation, because it wasn't actually against the rules, and was just "more of a suggestion". The argument seems to be that since Laquatus didn't use modtext, he wasn't enforcing a rule or issuing a warning, just making a suggestion.
If that is the case, how else am I to tell the difference between a mod enforcing a rule or issuing a warning, and just making a suggestion? The distinction appears to be the text you use.
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
So why hasn't the spam post been infracted yet?
I can justify iRebel's post as non-spam for the reason that he, a Global Moderator, is stating his support for what a subordinate section moderator. While a one-word reply is usually spam, this seems to be a reasonable use.
I don't see a moderator tag underneath your username.
If you feel a post is in violation of the rules, report it. Otherwise you're backseat modding.
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
Yeah, because confirming what another Mod said to be correct is spam..
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
Anyone else in the forums using a single word to agree with another post is considered spamming, and gets warned.
This
Happens
Over
And
Over
And Over
I particularly liked the one where Blutsau clarified that "one word posts count as spam"
Yes, your post carries more weight because you're a moderator, but that doesn't mean you're exempt from the rules. How hard would it be to say something like "Just wanted to confirm that Cabal_Chan is correct, in case anyone wanted input from a Global Mod."
Sure, you can do whatever you want. But if you want respect from the people you smack down on a regular basis, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard.
----------
Just to clarify, the official response from the mod staff is still that everything is fine, even though two different mods were selectively enforcing a rule that doesn't exist in a forum? I just don't understand how you can claim that Ambassador Laquatus' post doesn't convey the impression that rotation talk is not permitted.
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
I keep trying, but since the mods are ignoring the actual proof I posted of mods selectively enforcing rules, it's hard to do that. Would you care to respond to that?
EDIT: So where is the appropriate place to talk about mods who think they're above the rules, by the way? Should I start another thread for that, so it's in the right thread? Somehow I feel like that'd get closed pretty fast.
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
Selectively enforcing what? Spoiler discussions?
Cause I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out that each Game forum handles spoiler discussion differently.
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
See my post where In the Same Thread and the Same Forum, Ambassador Laquatus told people not to discuss spoilers, and Kijin said it was OK
J
My MTGSalvation Cube Page (not always up to date, but sweet pics of my alters)
That's something you would be best taking up with them in either their helpdesks, or over PM.
(Siggy adapted, DarkHunter1357 (deviantART))
I'm pretty sure I got you to agree with the idea of how each game forum handles spoiler discussion differently should be spelled out in a sticky in each forum. Why does it now look like you are arguing otherwise?
And I would like to point out that in the New Card Discussion Board there is a thread where a mod specifically spells out how that board should be the ONLY board that posters should talk about new cards.
I did report it.
But that matters, truly. Mods should not be allowed to get away with things that are spam just because they're mods.
I'd make a thread to push the point, but I can more or less guarantee you'd just lock it.