This is a community helpdesk for the Standard forum. This is an open forum discussion area for and questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions you might have for this forum. Nothing is off-limits, but we ask that you keep all comments civil. Additionally, this thread is not for:
- suggesting/debating/challenging site rules
- discussions that are more suited to dedicated or official threads
- arguing an infraction
- idle chatting/conversations
Not sure what you're saying about ignoring the rules. It is fine to post in this thread with any concerns you have specific to the Standard forum. Anything which applies to site-wide rules would not belong here, but in general if it refers to Standard, feel free to post here.
The rules about not having spoiler or post-rotation discussion in Standard forums have been around since before lugger or I joined this forum. The topic of allowing it seems to come up every few months (and you're probably correct that it will come up even more often with more frequent rotation). There are always those who favor a more relaxed spoiler policy and those who want to keep it as-is. As far as I have been able to tell, more posters have fallen into the latter group over the years.
Something to keep in mind is that discussion of the future can easily take over a thread and distract from discussion of the current Standard format, which is what the idea of this forum is. And considering that Oath is about two months away and barely any cards have been spoiled, I do think it would be detrimental to allow discussion of it in the main Standard forums. However, if you're interested in that, threads are already started in Standard New Card Discussion.
I'm willing to revisit the policy if I see that most of the forum wants a change, but in the time I've been here I haven't seen that.
Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions. Thanks.
I was referring to your note about 'debating site rules', as that is essentially what I was doing, right?
I would say "debating site rules" means arguing against sitewide rules (flaming/trolling, for example). Discussion of Standard-specific rules and policies is fine (in fact this replaces a thread we had which was explicitly for open discussion of Standard rules, policies, etc.)
Anyway, the gist of your story that I can extract is that you say most of the forum would like there to be such a strict policy. If I may be cynical, but those are not a whole lot of people then if you look at how inactive the Standard main forum is. I would guess the only people who are still around are exactly those who like your policy, but I think you should not rest on your laurels. It's just my opinion and I have nothing to back it up, but there are probably more people around who like a lax forum and who are not here, than there are people still around who prefer a strict policy.
As a general note, the rise of the MTG reddits/subreddits have brought a new player on the field that can rival and probably surpasses MTGSalvation as the biggest MTG forum on the net. Reddit does not have draconian rules that I sometimes encounter here (partly helped by its community-moderation format, which helps suppress the chaff). I'm sure there is also silent moderation going on there, but it seems to create more lively a place. If you wish to cater to the people who do not like such a free forum, fine, but again, there's apparently not a lot of them.
I don't think our rules are draconian. I realize we're probably losing plenty of people to Reddit, but I don't believe loosening rules would do anything to fix that here or anywhere else. If we change our policies to be more similar to Reddit, where will people go, here or Reddit? Probably Reddit. Reddit has a huge brand on their side. Someone who is looking for a new place to discuss MTG may never have heard of MTGSalvation, particularly if they're new to the game, but everyone has heard of Reddit, because it's one of the biggest sites on the internet. I can't speak for the staff as a whole, but I don't think we're trying to compete with Reddit and personally I am not concerned with whether we are the biggest or most popular site for MTG or for Standard. I want us to have a good community with interesting discussions, regardless of how large said community is.
Again, if a bunch of people who visit this forum want a change, I'll listen. But I'm not going to make a change just in the hope that it will draw more folks here. I doubt that would work and it's not a high priority for me regardless.
I have a severe problem with your beloved lugger and their less than stellar job moderating in the Standard section of the forums. I have had countless issues with lugger, and I usually just keep them to myself - but my most recent one is much more personal than all the other bull***** I see lugger do.
I do not want to hear that I should report all my problems even if they do not pertain to me personally, I get that, and I still do not do it because most of the time, none of you are worth enough salt for me to care. I digress.
My issue right now is that the Standard section is divided into 3 deck discussions.
Proven
Established
Deck Creation
Their rules are each different in order to accommodate the level of players who care about competition and want to filter their information so that it is relevant to the competitive level in which they are playing at. Nobody who plays Comp REL wants to read about someone's latest Grixis Brew in the Proven or Established sections - because they simply are not.
We have a new set coming out, and I understand that some new cards will be adapted by Proven and Established decks. However this is not an excuse to allow the discussion of an Abzan Blink deck in the Abzan Aggro thread simply because Eldrazi Displacer is a card. There is a distinct difference between maintaining the integrity of the Proven deck and adding new cards, to bastardizing it and recognizing a wolf in sheep clothing as a sheep.
lugger seems to think, despite history showing us almost time and time again, that a few new cards justify a discussion about a drastic deviance from what has previously been Proven - in the Proven section. I understand that there is a new set overlap, and some level of brewing is acceptable.
But YOU moderators separate these sections for a reason, and that reason does not simply go away because some new cards are being release.
Abzan Aggro has remained true to a distinctive shell for over a year, and while I am not going to be surprised if it sees new changes, there is still a very real difference between adapting a deck, and building a new one.
It is incredibly disrespectful to the competitive players when discussions to such a degree of deviance are permitted in the sections that YOU moderators have designated as a safe space for competitive deck adaptation and discussion and it is sad that lugger cannot, and apparently does not, have to abide by and enforce those rules that the Moderation staff has put forward to continue to preserve that line between discussions as they relate to Comp levels.
I assure you that this is not just me that does not appreciate this and it is not about me having a personal distaste for lugger, it is about the staff not holding themselves accountable to their own rules and not preserving the structure that they should be preserving as staff.
A number of us in the competitive community would appreciate if another staff member would step in to prevent major deviance in the discussion that is seen as a derailment to the topic and a breach of forum rules as set forth by the moderation staff.
When a new set comes out, the Standard format changes, sometimes in a major way. We could argue that, with the change, no archetype is "proven" or "established" any more and it's an entirely new format. We don't actually do that, obviously, unless there's a rotation, but the bottom line is that with the new set coming in, people are going to want to put new spins on established archetypes. Sometimes this means a small change, sometimes a more fundamental change. Which changes are "competitive" is up for debate, at least until the format has settled. This is the point lugger was trying to make.
As moderators, it is impossible for us to dictate whether a new card is "competitive" or not, unless it is objectively inferior to other available options.
Now, you mentioned that some of the cards proposed were from sets already in Standard, which is a valid point. However, sometimes the introduction of one new card can make other cards worth considering (e.g. Ponder making Delver of Secrets better). Additionally, some of the cards you singled out included Elvish Visionary and Oblivion Sower which have been very successful in other decks and other formats. Do I personally think Elvish Visionary is going to be a staple in competitive Abzan? I'd lean toward no, but it's clearly not an objectively bad card, and there's at least a chance that competitive Abzan Midrange decks could play it in the future.
As for your assertions that it's not just you, and that a number of people in the community agree, if that's the case, they are certainly welcome to speak for themselves in this thread.
Are you looking to build a specific deck? If so, those specific deck threads should be distributed throughout our Proven/Est./SDC/Budget subforums. You can ask the question in thread for the specific deck.
Are you looking for general standard deck building advice? Go ahead and post your question in the Standard Main Forum and wait for answers from our (hopefully) more experienced users.
If you're looking for advice for other formats (modern, legacy, casual) feel free to post in those subforums. A post about Modern in the Standard format will sometimes be marked as spam.
Are all threads going to be archived in 2 weeks? In particular, my thread on Tamiyo's Toolbox is built around a Shadows mechanic, and virtually nothing changes unless we find new cards worth playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Awesome Deck: UWAll-In GiftsWU Consistent, Resiliant, and way overpowered, making multiple 4/4s per turn.
GB Electric Dreams BG Deal 20 in one shot, or discard their hand?
GWUFree Stuff MidrangeUWG Slowly bury the opponent with more threats and answers than they can handle.
Are all threads going to be archived in 2 weeks? In particular, my thread on Tamiyo's Toolbox is built around a Shadows mechanic, and virtually nothing changes unless we find new cards worth playing.
Send me a short message about this and I can make sure that your thread sticks around.
I just don't want 20-30 threads hanging around with old primers that the OP never updates.
I'm trying to decide what to play for game day and for me it always comes down to sideboards, does anyone have any insight into what sideboards from the pro tour are going to be strongest this weekend and why?
I have a question about Kambal, Consul of Allocation. If i cast it, then my opponent plays a noncreature counter spell, does kambals ability trigger, or does kambal have to be on the battlefield before his ability takes effect?
I just got started with the MTG games after getting a random pack of playing cards. The thing is, I have no idea how this game works, like whether cards can be used to "counter" or "compliment" another card on the deck?
So which subforum can I use to ask newbie questions or card specific questions?
I just got started with the MTG games after getting a random pack of playing cards. The thing is, I have no idea how this game works, like whether cards can be used to "counter" or "compliment" another card on the deck?
So which subforum can I use to ask newbie questions or card specific questions?
Magic Rulings can take care of your rulings questions.
General strategy questions probably go here, that is, until you know which formats you are playing.
If you have super super general questions or need a quick reference while playing through your first games, this link helps a lot.
I just got started with the MTG games after getting a random pack of playing cards. The thing is, I have no idea how this game works, like whether cards can be used to "counter" or "compliment" another card on the deck?
So which subforum can I use to ask newbie questions or card specific questions?
Magic Rulings can take care of your rulings questions.
General strategy questions probably go here, that is, until you know which formats you are playing.
If you have super super general questions or need a quick reference while playing through your first games, this link helps a lot.
In which forum would I post and talk about building a standard deck and asking for help abd input to make it consistent post rotation?
Welcome!
If you want help picking a deck concept, then post in this thread. If you have a plan, then see if there is a thread for it already or start a thread in Deck Creation (Standard).
Please inquire further if I have misunderstood your query.
Although "Standard Main Forum- What Belongs Here" calls for banlist discussions to take place in the designated thread, there is a new banlist thread. This thread incorporates an interesting poll, and a poll wouldn't work on a post at the end of the banlist, etc thread.
My inclination would be to allow new banlist poll threads and revise the what belongs here rules to allow them.
My interpretation of the intent of the Standard Main Forum rules is that it is supposed to remain relatively uncluttered and a plethora of banlist polls would be undesirable. My solution to this would be to allow only one banlist poll at a time.
So I propose that I modify the guideline in "what belongs here" about what doesn't belong here from:
Format Health, metagame, bannings, rotation threads (there's a thread for that too)
to become
Format Health, metagame, bannings, rotation threads except for a single banlist poll thread (there's a thread for that too)
Community feedback here is solicited. In the absence of feedback within a week, I will make this change.
- suggesting/debating/challenging site rules
- discussions that are more suited to dedicated or official threads
- arguing an infraction
- idle chatting/conversations
Not sure what you're saying about ignoring the rules. It is fine to post in this thread with any concerns you have specific to the Standard forum. Anything which applies to site-wide rules would not belong here, but in general if it refers to Standard, feel free to post here.
The rules about not having spoiler or post-rotation discussion in Standard forums have been around since before lugger or I joined this forum. The topic of allowing it seems to come up every few months (and you're probably correct that it will come up even more often with more frequent rotation). There are always those who favor a more relaxed spoiler policy and those who want to keep it as-is. As far as I have been able to tell, more posters have fallen into the latter group over the years.
Something to keep in mind is that discussion of the future can easily take over a thread and distract from discussion of the current Standard format, which is what the idea of this forum is. And considering that Oath is about two months away and barely any cards have been spoiled, I do think it would be detrimental to allow discussion of it in the main Standard forums. However, if you're interested in that, threads are already started in Standard New Card Discussion.
I'm willing to revisit the policy if I see that most of the forum wants a change, but in the time I've been here I haven't seen that.
Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions. Thanks.
I would say "debating site rules" means arguing against sitewide rules (flaming/trolling, for example). Discussion of Standard-specific rules and policies is fine (in fact this replaces a thread we had which was explicitly for open discussion of Standard rules, policies, etc.)
I don't think our rules are draconian. I realize we're probably losing plenty of people to Reddit, but I don't believe loosening rules would do anything to fix that here or anywhere else. If we change our policies to be more similar to Reddit, where will people go, here or Reddit? Probably Reddit. Reddit has a huge brand on their side. Someone who is looking for a new place to discuss MTG may never have heard of MTGSalvation, particularly if they're new to the game, but everyone has heard of Reddit, because it's one of the biggest sites on the internet. I can't speak for the staff as a whole, but I don't think we're trying to compete with Reddit and personally I am not concerned with whether we are the biggest or most popular site for MTG or for Standard. I want us to have a good community with interesting discussions, regardless of how large said community is.
Again, if a bunch of people who visit this forum want a change, I'll listen. But I'm not going to make a change just in the hope that it will draw more folks here. I doubt that would work and it's not a high priority for me regardless.
I have a severe problem with your beloved lugger and their less than stellar job moderating in the Standard section of the forums. I have had countless issues with lugger, and I usually just keep them to myself - but my most recent one is much more personal than all the other bull***** I see lugger do.
I do not want to hear that I should report all my problems even if they do not pertain to me personally, I get that, and I still do not do it because most of the time, none of you are worth enough salt for me to care. I digress.
My issue right now is that the Standard section is divided into 3 deck discussions.
We have a new set coming out, and I understand that some new cards will be adapted by Proven and Established decks. However this is not an excuse to allow the discussion of an Abzan Blink deck in the Abzan Aggro thread simply because Eldrazi Displacer is a card. There is a distinct difference between maintaining the integrity of the Proven deck and adding new cards, to bastardizing it and recognizing a wolf in sheep clothing as a sheep.
lugger seems to think, despite history showing us almost time and time again, that a few new cards justify a discussion about a drastic deviance from what has previously been Proven - in the Proven section. I understand that there is a new set overlap, and some level of brewing is acceptable.
But YOU moderators separate these sections for a reason, and that reason does not simply go away because some new cards are being release.
Abzan Aggro has remained true to a distinctive shell for over a year, and while I am not going to be surprised if it sees new changes, there is still a very real difference between adapting a deck, and building a new one.
It is incredibly disrespectful to the competitive players when discussions to such a degree of deviance are permitted in the sections that YOU moderators have designated as a safe space for competitive deck adaptation and discussion and it is sad that lugger cannot, and apparently does not, have to abide by and enforce those rules that the Moderation staff has put forward to continue to preserve that line between discussions as they relate to Comp levels.
I assure you that this is not just me that does not appreciate this and it is not about me having a personal distaste for lugger, it is about the staff not holding themselves accountable to their own rules and not preserving the structure that they should be preserving as staff.
A number of us in the competitive community would appreciate if another staff member would step in to prevent major deviance in the discussion that is seen as a derailment to the topic and a breach of forum rules as set forth by the moderation staff.
When a new set comes out, the Standard format changes, sometimes in a major way. We could argue that, with the change, no archetype is "proven" or "established" any more and it's an entirely new format. We don't actually do that, obviously, unless there's a rotation, but the bottom line is that with the new set coming in, people are going to want to put new spins on established archetypes. Sometimes this means a small change, sometimes a more fundamental change. Which changes are "competitive" is up for debate, at least until the format has settled. This is the point lugger was trying to make.
As moderators, it is impossible for us to dictate whether a new card is "competitive" or not, unless it is objectively inferior to other available options.
Now, you mentioned that some of the cards proposed were from sets already in Standard, which is a valid point. However, sometimes the introduction of one new card can make other cards worth considering (e.g. Ponder making Delver of Secrets better). Additionally, some of the cards you singled out included Elvish Visionary and Oblivion Sower which have been very successful in other decks and other formats. Do I personally think Elvish Visionary is going to be a staple in competitive Abzan? I'd lean toward no, but it's clearly not an objectively bad card, and there's at least a chance that competitive Abzan Midrange decks could play it in the future.
As for your assertions that it's not just you, and that a number of people in the community agree, if that's the case, they are certainly welcome to speak for themselves in this thread.
Thanks,
-rujasu
I look forward to posting me sweet brews in the competitive section for the time being.
Thanks!
Nope. We did away with that a few months back. It didn't end up serving the purpose we wanted.
Post away!
Are you looking to build a specific deck? If so, those specific deck threads should be distributed throughout our Proven/Est./SDC/Budget subforums. You can ask the question in thread for the specific deck.
Are you looking for general standard deck building advice? Go ahead and post your question in the Standard Main Forum and wait for answers from our (hopefully) more experienced users.
If you're looking for advice for other formats (modern, legacy, casual) feel free to post in those subforums. A post about Modern in the Standard format will sometimes be marked as spam.
GB Electric Dreams BG Deal 20 in one shot, or discard their hand?
GWU Free Stuff Midrange UWG Slowly bury the opponent with more threats and answers than they can handle.
My greatest hits:
GURFate Reforged Temur Ascendancy COMBORUG
GUDragons of Tarkir Whisperwood Forever UG
Send me a short message about this and I can make sure that your thread sticks around.
I just don't want 20-30 threads hanging around with old primers that the OP never updates.
This thread is everything you ever wanted to know.
Hope it helps!
If you're trying to find your old posts, you can always click through on your profile.
-- Lugger
I just got started with the MTG games after getting a random pack of playing cards. The thing is, I have no idea how this game works, like whether cards can be used to "counter" or "compliment" another card on the deck?
So which subforum can I use to ask newbie questions or card specific questions?
Magic Rulings can take care of your rulings questions.
General strategy questions probably go here, that is, until you know which formats you are playing.
If you have super super general questions or need a quick reference while playing through your first games, this link helps a lot.
thanks...
Welcome!
If you want help picking a deck concept, then post in this thread. If you have a plan, then see if there is a thread for it already or start a thread in Deck Creation (Standard).
Please inquire further if I have misunderstood your query.
RNA Standard: Grixis Midrange, Jund Deathwhirler, Sultai Vannifar
GRN Standard: Red Midrange, Mono-Blue Tempo, Wr Aggro, Gruul Experimental Dinosaurs, Sultai Midrange, Jeskai Midrange
Modern: Bant Spirits
Forcing a single archetype in all formats: too many colors, bad mana.
My inclination would be to allow new banlist poll threads and revise the what belongs here rules to allow them.
My interpretation of the intent of the Standard Main Forum rules is that it is supposed to remain relatively uncluttered and a plethora of banlist polls would be undesirable. My solution to this would be to allow only one banlist poll at a time.
So I propose that I modify the guideline in "what belongs here" about what doesn't belong here from:
to become
Community feedback here is solicited. In the absence of feedback within a week, I will make this change.
Edit: making the change. 11/6/17
RNA Standard: Grixis Midrange, Jund Deathwhirler, Sultai Vannifar
GRN Standard: Red Midrange, Mono-Blue Tempo, Wr Aggro, Gruul Experimental Dinosaurs, Sultai Midrange, Jeskai Midrange
Modern: Bant Spirits
Forcing a single archetype in all formats: too many colors, bad mana.