What NOT to post

[AlucardTheOld]

Here Here! Finally something to stop these idiotic posts.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm arriving a week late to the party to say this:

 

I'll be willing to overlook posts that are solely OCG correction.

 

Opposed.

 

That one is suggestive and thankfully. If the person asks for one' date=' the post with the OCG correction will not be harmed. However, should multiple people try to correct the OCG that is not in dispute with any rulings or otherwise, they will be warned.

 

+20% is the basic btw.

[/quote']

 

Please explain why. I've always found OCG fixes to be much more helpful than your "too much going on" comments. Its being correct is critical to the appearance of professionality on a given card. It's critical to a given card's realism.

[Guest JoshIcy]

I'm arriving a week late to the party to say this:

 

I'll be willing to overlook posts that are solely OCG correction.

 

Opposed.

 

 

That one is suggestive and thankfully. If the person asks for one' date=' the post with the OCG correction will not be harmed. However, should multiple people try to correct the OCG that is not in dispute with any rulings or otherwise, they will be warned.

 

+20% is the basic btw.

[/quote']

 

Please explain why. I've always found OCG fixes to be much more helpful than your "too much going on" comments. Its being correct is critical to the appearance of professionality on a given card. It's critical to a given card's realism.

 

 

Then we clearly see cards differently. "Too much going on" shows a lack of direction, while a language correction when there's no ruling issue, is rude.

[Shinobi Phoenix]

I'm arriving a week late to the party to say this:

 

I'll be willing to overlook posts that are solely OCG correction.

 

Opposed.

 

That one is suggestive and thankfully. If the person asks for one' date=' the post with the OCG correction will not be harmed. However, should multiple people try to correct the OCG that is not in dispute with any rulings or otherwise, they will be warned.

 

+20% is the basic btw.

[/quote']

 

Please explain why. I've always found OCG fixes to be much more helpful than your "too much going on" comments. Its being correct is critical to the appearance of professionality on a given card. It's critical to a given card's realism.

 

A site based on individual ideas and subjective opinions of others is mutual exclusive to any idea of professionalism as is the act of copy/pasting a limited selection of lines previously used by a company and demanding everyone copy and use ONLY those lines without any given to creativeness or idealism or the fact that even said company reserves the right to use whatever wording they want.

 

"OCG fix" comments I've seen the most around here almost always come from people who have no bloody clue what they're talking about and refuse to think a little for themselves and study what really has been used and what's been changed and adjusted and WHY wording gets phrased as it is. Instead you have people just demanding to set to a non-existent neither they or the people they demand it of understand. Proof is in the fact that if people understood the wording and the "why" of it, they would better understand the mechanics and rules of the game. The fact they don't is paramount evidence against it.

 

It's a far cry from professionalism and that doesn't even have a place in a hobby outside of making people feel better. It's supposed to be fun at the core anyway.

 

 

How about we try teaching WHY and often suggestion on how it could be worded to do what they intend (whether or not it's "YCMOCG") and not just say "word it like this or else" and you might find some better card makers around here?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm arriving a week late to the party to say this:

 

I'll be willing to overlook posts that are solely OCG correction.

 

Opposed.

 

That one is suggestive and thankfully. If the person asks for one' date=' the post with the OCG correction will not be harmed. However, should multiple people try to correct the OCG that is not in dispute with any rulings or otherwise, they will be warned.

 

+20% is the basic btw.

[/quote']

 

Please explain why. I've always found OCG fixes to be much more helpful than your "too much going on" comments. Its being correct is critical to the appearance of professionality on a given card. It's critical to a given card's realism.

 

Then we clearly see cards differently. "Too much going on" shows a lack of direction, while a language correction when there's no ruling issue, is rude.

 

How is a "language correction" rude as opposed to "showing a lack of direction" while "too much going on shows a lack of direction" as opposed to being "rude"?

 

It's one thing to not particularly enjoy a certain method for which people evaluate cards, another to use your power penalize people for using said method because you don't particularly enjoy it.

 

 

I'm arriving a week late to the party to say this:

 

I'll be willing to overlook posts that are solely OCG correction.

 

Opposed.

 

That one is suggestive and thankfully. If the person asks for one' date=' the post with the OCG correction will not be harmed. However, should multiple people try to correct the OCG that is not in dispute with any rulings or otherwise, they will be warned.

 

+20% is the basic btw.

[/quote']

 

Please explain why. I've always found OCG fixes to be much more helpful than your "too much going on" comments. Its being correct is critical to the appearance of professionality on a given card. It's critical to a given card's realism.

 

A site based on individual ideas and subjective opinions of others is mutual exclusive to any idea of professionalism as is the act of copy/pasting a limited selection of lines previously used by a company and demanding everyone copy and use ONLY those lines without any given to creativeness or idealism or the fact that even said company reserves the right to use whatever wording they want.

 

"OCG fix" comments I've seen the most around here almost always come from people who have no bloody clue what they're talking about and refuse to think a little for themselves and study what really has been used and what's been changed and adjusted and WHY wording gets phrased as it is. Instead you have people just demanding to set to a non-existent neither they or the people they demand it of understand. Proof is in the fact that if people understood the wording and the "why" of it, they would better understand the mechanics and rules of the game. The fact they don't is paramount evidence against it.

 

It's a far cry from professionalism and that doesn't even have a place in a hobby outside of making people feel better. It's supposed to be fun at the core anyway.

 

How about we try teaching WHY and often suggestion on how it could be worded to do what they intend (whether or not it's "YCMOCG") and not just say "word it like this or else" and you might find some better card makers around here?

 

So, why do we try to make our cards' wordings similar to Konami's? It's hardly "a far cry from professionalism", I'm not seeing how you're getting that to be frank. Professionalism's the reason there're Card Contests. People want to be the best. People want to be "Legendary Card Makers". Just because something's "fun at the core" as you're calling it, doesn't mean that there can't be a competitive portion in it as well through which people can benefit and enjoy the site from.

 

The "art of Card Making" if it can be so called, involves applying a various number of skillsets to a card in order to make it look as though it's a good card. To restrict the way in which certain skill sets in Card Making can be improved takes away from the potential appreciation one can have for others' cards. Knowing up-to-date card wordings can be seen as just as relevant as having synergy between your card's name, picture, and style of effect.

 

There is great potential for skill in OCG, and it shouldn't be turned into a punishable offense. The more skillsets a card can be applied with, the better the card's potential is, the better cards will be. Let's not subtract from potential cumulative quality.

[Guest JoshIcy]

*scratches head* Shinobi Phoenix got it for me.

 

And the LCM was among the best (we never claimed TO BE the best), because we had fun with cards. Weren't competitive except with each other, like how me and Hunter etc. And we made sure our thinking was a far cry from elitist, so we each had our own definition of what makes a great card. Diversity is key there.

 

We are not restricting skill-sets with this rule. We are removing it from comments and using it to expand on what people can see in a card. Commenting on OCG is fine, as long as it's minimal and if a correction has already been said you're just stating the obvious and nothing in opinion (though posting "Ocg errors 8/10" is spam no matter WHAT you have to say). Especially if such errors are merely punctuation (though periods etc are pretty damned important).

 

And yes there is, but with the way Realistic Cards is; raw effects are suffering as a result. And we must bring it back. When such comments have been relaxed for an extended period, this rule will go back to being a Misc Rule as it was before.

[Shinobi Phoenix]

So' date=' why do we try to make our cards' wordings similar to Konami's? It's hardly "a far cry from professionalism", I'm not seeing how you're getting that to be frank. Professionalism's the reason there're Card Contests. People want to be the best. People want to be "Legendary Card Makers". Just because something's "fun at the core" as you're calling it, doesn't mean that there can't be a competitive portion in it as well through which people can benefit and enjoy the site from.

 

The "art of Card Making" if it can be so called, involves applying a various number of skillsets to a card in order to make it look as though it's a good card. To restrict the way in which certain skill sets in Card Making can be improved takes away from the potential appreciation one can have for others' cards. Knowing up-to-date card wordings can be seen as just as relevant as having synergy between your card's name, picture, and style of effect.

 

There is great potential for skill in OCG, and it shouldn't be turned into a punishable offense. The more skillsets a card can be applied with, the better the card's potential is, the better cards will be. Let's not subtract from potential cumulative quality.

[/quote']

 

So copying the teacher's handbook is how a student learns? Especially when the teacher keeps rewriting the handbook and still using older versions and new versions and changes to the WILL of the R&D team (not Konami or Shueisha directly). If one wanted to pretend to be professional, they'd study all card games, especially ones who have done it better. Wizards especially. Konami's Card Business department is still learning themselves so why are people pretending just copying is professional except to make themselves feel more important?

 

 

This is getting to be like the debate of cooking. Is it an art or a science? Both sides are too self-centered to just admit its both, but what it is the most is PERSONAL. For that, you have to teach people how to express and not have to just do it some up to some non-existent standard. From there, they'll actually learn and make less mistakes because they'll know WHY it should be written that way and make changes to do more interesting things.

 

 

There's another issue that all this OCG crap just makes people lazy, thinking as long as they follow this "standard," it's correct and proper. That's a bad way of thinking.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

The skill in OCG is not abstract. It is set in stone. The entire skill in "OFFICIAL" Card Grammar is copying a set "OFFICIAL" standard to the best of one's ability (one cannot make a substance tasting more like oranges than an orange, for an orange is the ultimate in tasting like itself and any attempts to do so are, in fact, mere attemps), but that doesn't make it any less something that should be valued than the abstract. To imply that objective skillsets shouldn't be valued because they aren't abstract is fascism. We should value as much as we can in a card.

 

You cannot possibly exceed "the teacher's handbook", for it's the ultimate guide in realistic card wording. It's official. You don't seem able to grasp the "official" part of "Official Card Grammar". It's the most important part.

 

There's a great amount of skill in knowing cards which have the most up-to-date erratas of what you're trying to convey.

 

There's another issue that all this OCG crap just makes people lazy' date=' thinking as long as they follow this "standard," it's correct and proper. [b']That's a bad way of thinking.[/b]

 

Why? Because you say so? Your word on wordings isn't law, you are not the official source. Konami is. "Standard" and "official" are synomynous. SCG would be fine too. It IS correct and proper. Studiously keeping up to date with the current official style isn't a lazy pursuit in the least. Back in my cardmaking days, a great deal of people simply couldn't master it due to the massive database one's required to master. It was hard work. When new sets came out, one would need to take a good look at them to keep up.

 

 

*scratches head* Shinobi Phoenix got it for me.

 

And the LCM was among the best (we never claimed TO BE the best)' date=' because we had fun with cards. Weren't competitive except with each other, like how me and Hunter etc. And we made sure our thinking was a far cry from elitist, so we each had our own definition of what makes a great card. Diversity is key there.

 

We are not restricting skill-sets with this rule. We are removing it from comments and using it to expand on what people can see in a card. Commenting on OCG is fine, as long as it's minimal and if a correction has already been said you're just stating the obvious and nothing in opinion (though posting "Ocg errors 8/10" is spam no matter WHAT you have to say). Especially if such errors are merely punctuation (though periods etc are pretty damned important).

 

And yes there is, but with the way Realistic Cards is; raw effects are suffering as a result. And we must bring it back. When such comments have been relaxed for an extended period, this rule will go back to being a Misc Rule as it was before.

[/quote']

 

I understand that simply posting "OCG ERRORS" without indicating what they are isn't helpful. I don't do it, I didn't do it, I find it annoying, I discourage others from doing it. In the same light, posts barking "NOT A GREAT PIC" etc etc, aren't all that helpful either. Vague posts aren't limited to OCG. Just because vague posts are bad doesn't mean ALL OCG-based comments have to be. Penalize vague posts if you will, I'd happily agree if you were to.

 

Why is it that fun and competition cannot coexist? In my eyes, they can. Just because certain people are the best or greater at something than any given person, doesn't mean they can't have fun in that pursuit. Look at sports. Look at Chess. Look at the TCG. Look at the whole boatload of evidence before you.

 

"Raw effects" are a good thing to value, sure. Does that mean OCG isn't? They both require dedication. Just because one should try to follow current OCG to the best of their ability doesn't mean they have to totally drop quality of effects. Both are valuable. To use fear in order to change the way in which skills are valued is, in my eyes, the wrong thing to do.

[Guest JoshIcy]

When such comments have been relaxed for an extended period, this rule will go back to being a Misc Rule as it was before.

 

Read that line again Polaris.

[Guest]

tl;dr on everything above.

 

OCG is the least interesting and creative aspect of a card, and evaluating cards based on OCG is like evaluating a philosophical concept based on the writing style of its author.

[Phantom Roxas]

By the way, I think we need to draw the line between excessive stupidity that leads to unintentionally bad advice, and outright trolling that is intentionally bad advice. The discussion here will serve as a guide to the others who actually attempt to follow these rules.

[Masey 4 AVFC]

I used to warn newbies all the time about this.I won't be able to do it no more and they'll get negs and warning levels from mods and members if they don't know about it.So one person should post and report it then no one should post in the thread.This will probably be a better idea.

[Guest JoshIcy]

tl;dr on everything above.

 

OCG is the least interesting and creative aspect of a card' date=' and evaluating cards based on OCG is like evaluating a philosophical concept based on the writing style of its author.

[/quote']

 

<3

[DARKPLANT RISING]

Hey...

 

This guy said that sole OCG corrections are OK in Any Other Cards and those. I am Opposed to it. How do the mods think?

[Phantom Roxas]

Just OCG correction is illegal in all sections, not just RC.

 

I just handed out a few 50% warns. Don't whine, because you should have understand this.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

tl;dr on everything above.

 

OCG is the least interesting and creative aspect of a card' date=' and evaluating cards based on OCG is like evaluating a philosophical concept based on the writing style of its author.

[/quote']

 

In the evaluation of philosophical arguments based on professionalism on the other hand, which I'll mention could occur easily as much within assignments, job application considerations, etc, writing style is an issue. Not the only issue of course, but part of the picture nevertheless.

 

The evaluation of a card's professionalism is more to the point here than simply "evaluating the card". In making cards, the goal is to make them seem as though they could be released. Professionalism is an issue. OCG can be just as relevent in a card's being correctly made as balance.

 

Oh, and you can't exactly tl;dr people. Just sayin'.

 

Don't whine' date=' because you should have understand this.

[/quote']

 

You're incompetent.

[Phantom Roxas]

My error was assuming that people would learn to improve the way they post. If they are to post in such an ignorant manner, I see no justification for why they should complain about being warned.

 

Very well, I have completely rewritten the first post.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Haha wow... Roxas is stricter than me. I've been giving outright 20% Warns. And here he is doing 50%? Well. I did talk about the 50% in a thread xD (prior to realizing this).

 

Kudos.

[Phantom Roxas]

I give out 50's for the same reason I made this thread. I'm tired of some things, and we need to crack down on it. I will, however, give out much less harsher warns dependent on how new the member is, so that they can properly adjust to the forum. If they have five stars, then I generally assume they should know by now some basics.

[Shinobi Phoenix]

tl;dr on everything above.

 

OCG is the least interesting and creative aspect of a card' date=' and evaluating cards based on OCG is like evaluating a philosophical concept based on the writing style of its author.

[/quote']

 

In the evaluation of philosophical arguments based on professionalism on the other hand, which I'll mention could occur easily as much within assignments, job application considerations, etc, writing style is an issue. Not the only issue of course, but part of the picture nevertheless.

 

The evaluation of a card's professionalism is more to the point here than simply "evaluating the card". In making cards, the goal is to make them seem as though they could be released. Professionalism is an issue. OCG can be just as relevent in a card's being correctly made as balance.

 

Oh, and you can't exactly tl;dr people. Just sayin'.

 

 

Or to put it a better way, you're trying to justify attempts at a sole dictation of people's personal work citing "professionalism." There's no professionalism in pretending you're taking influence from another and most certainly there is no honor in pretending you can align yourself with someone just because you are copying. That's blatant egoism of the highest form, especially when a company regularly changes how they wish to write things the further they go and the more new blood they bring in. It's decided by whatever R&D team is current, NOT Konami themselves, else it would be impossible to try new things and most important, if there was a set in stone standard, they could ACTUALLY use "Keywords" instead of always writing things out (something that would save time, materials and man hours). If you think Konami isn't about saving money and time like any other companies, you're deluded. Unfortunately, the true fact remains that no matter WHAT text they put, idiots find a way to claim ignorance and say "we thought it was always written out this way." "Read the damn card."

 

Writing in the style of a certain writer (or many) does not align you with that writer who wouldn't even know you exist anyway. You don't copy the New York Times and pretend you know the New York Times from the inside or what you think they want. Even Rupert Murdoch doesn't align himself with the Right-Wing Republicans even though his company copies their base for sensationalism and thus money it makes when people watch whether in love or anger, but I bet someone like you would judge him as being a Republican simply because of what his networks put on (he said himself he puts on simply what make him more money). It's the same thing. Egoism. It's no different from a child secretly watching his dad shave (or anything really) and then copies his actions because it makes him feel closer to him and he thinks he's doing the correct thing. Then he goes around trying to make all his little friends do it like his dad or thinks copying Dad around his friends make him the cool guy. You grow up and then reality strikes.

 

You don't even know what it takes to be hired to the R&D team of KDE or even what degree they want, so how would you know what they want once you actually work for them? You don't and almost no one here does (I just happen to know at least 3 people who have tried and only one who actually did so and one who almost did but couldn't because he could not acquire his American visa in time), so no one here should be pretending we're any closer to being "in good with them" by copying their works. BTW-- if you want to cite copying someone's work makes you professional, there's a far different word for that. Plagiarism. We want to be at least twice removed from actually copying the work in the first place and definitely shouldn't be entertaining the notion that copying gets you in closer to them.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

tl;dr on everything above.

 

OCG is the least interesting and creative aspect of a card' date=' and evaluating cards based on OCG is like evaluating a philosophical concept based on the writing style of its author.

[/quote']

 

In the evaluation of philosophical arguments based on professionalism on the other hand, which I'll mention could occur easily as much within assignments, job application considerations, etc, writing style is an issue. Not the only issue of course, but part of the picture nevertheless.

 

The evaluation of a card's professionalism is more to the point here than simply "evaluating the card". In making cards, one of the goals is to make them seem as though they could be released. Professionalism is an issue. OCG can be just as relevent in a card's being correctly made as balance.

 

Oh, and you can't exactly tl;dr people. Just sayin'.

 

 

Or to put it a better way, you're trying to justify attempts at a sole dictation of people's personal work citing "professionalism." There's no professionalism in pretending you're taking influence from another and most certainly there is no honor in pretending you can align yourself with someone just because you are copying. That's blatant egoism of the highest form, especially when a company regularly changes how they wish to write things the further they go and the more new blood they bring in. It's decided by whatever R&D team is current, NOT Konami themselves, else it would be impossible to try new things and most important, if there was a set in stone standard, they could ACTUALLY use "Keywords" instead of always writing things out (something that would save time, materials and man hours). If you think Konami isn't about saving money and time like any other companies, you're deluded. Unfortunately, the true fact remains that no matter WHAT text they put, idiots find a way to claim ignorance and say "we thought it was always written out this way." "Read the damn card."

 

Stop squawking nonsense. "Honor"'s totally irrelevant, as are the motives behind how cards are officially worded. You seem confused about what I mean by "professionalism". It's the ability to not have cards look unprofessionally done, to not have cards with wording so unorthodox that they wouldn't be released. Realisticism. Simply wording your cards as per the latest official examples of what you're trying to say communicates that you put extra effort into making your card look realistic. Why shouldn't this effort be encouraged? Making cards seem as true to the originals is a fair value and shouldn't be left in the dust. Why not? Because then they wouldn't be Yugioh cards.

 

Writing in the style of a certain writer (or many) does not align you with that writer who wouldn't even know you exist anyway. You don't copy the New York Times and pretend you know the New York Times from the inside or what you think they want. Even Rupert Murdoch doesn't align himself with the Right-Wing Republicans even though his company copies their base for sensationalism and thus money it makes when people watch whether in love or anger' date=' but I bet someone like you would judge him as being a Republican simply because of what his networks put on (he said himself he puts on simply what make him more money). It's the same thing. Egoism. It's no different from a child secretly watching his dad shave (or anything really) and then copies his actions because it makes him feel closer to him and he thinks he's doing the correct thing. Then he goes around trying to make all his little friends do it like his dad or thinks copying Dad around his friends make him the cool guy. You grow up and then reality strikes.[/quote']

 

Except that the whole context here is completely different, and your argument doesn't apply. Some kid's dad doesn't set the official way in which everyone's to shave. The creators of genuine cards set the official way in which we're to word card effects. Why? Because they're official cards and holding true to them is a valid value. Why shouldn't it be? If CUSTOM Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Cards hold NO RESEMBLENCE to their originals, different borders, different formatting, etc, etc, which is what we're leading to here, THEY BECOME SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. They are NO LONGER CUSTOM YU-GI-OH CARDS, but rather just your own card game altogether.

 

You bring up egotism, but again, your argument doesn't apply. In what element is the way in which one words their cards any more ego-fuelling than the picture they choose, the name they choose, the effect they choose, the level of balance they apply, etc? It only seems like ego-fuel to you because you don't value having Custom Yugioh Cards resemble Yugioh Cards. You'd have the "Y" taken out of YCM. Unfortunately, that's not how we roll here, and if you're just making "cards", as opposed to "Yugioh Cards", this isn't the place for you.

 

You don't even know what it takes to be hired to the R&D team of KDE or even what degree they want' date=' so how would you know what they want once you actually work for them? You don't and almost no one here does (I just happen to know at least 3 people who have tried and only one who actually did so and one who almost did but couldn't because he could not acquire his American visa in time), so no one here should be pretending we're any closer to being "in good with them" by copying their works. BTW-- if you want to cite copying someone's work makes you professional, there's a far different word for that. Plagiarism. We want to be at least twice removed from actually copying the work in the first place and definitely shouldn't be entertaining the notion that copying gets you in closer to them.

[/quote']

 

The card maker isn't plagiarism. The card maker is an engine with which we can participate in the same practice in which Konami participates. How we engage in participating in this practice is in our own interests. Similarly, Official Card Grammar is a collection of ways in which to word a card. How we use it and how Konami uses it don't necessarily have to be the same. It just depends on how loosely you're willing to throw the term "plagiarism" around.

 

There's a disclaimer around the bottom of the main forums indicating that YCM and its members don't own Yugioh. We just make fan-fare based on it. We don't sell our creations either, we just make them for our own alternative purposes. Why should Konami care? Moreover, why do you think our site's main purpose is to have Konami notice us and hire us?

 

SO GUYS, DO YOU SEE NOW WHY THE FUNDAMENTAL VALUE BY WHICH YUGIOH CARD MAKER WAS MADE, TO CREATE YUGIOH CARDS, SHOULDN'T BE MADE INTO A PUNISHABLE OFFENSE BY THE SITE'S ADMINISTRATION? OFFICIAL CARD GRAMMAR IS JUST AS MUCH PART OF A YUGIOH CARD AS ITS UNIQUE OUTLINE. I'M JUST SUPER DUPER SAYIN' PRETTY LOUDLY.

[usetheforcehan]

tl;dr is common because some people prefer to created a card with an EXTREMELY long text/lore/effect that we actually NEED 1 minute just to read the whole sentences.

 

In short, please shorten the card's lore. TY.

[Frybread002]

........*Sigh* I will admitt, we're kind of argueing over pointless things here, like what type of stuff we should do, to avoid warnings, when the real point of this is "What NOT to post". Now I'm not baggin on anyone's point of views on this thread, but I will admitt, this all seems childish. Even I'd call myself childish too, for posting something that really hasn't my intention, but I'm somewhat forced to read this, for the sake of not being banned. But it is ironic that we're dicussing an child's card game (I don't mean the orginal manga of Yu-Gi-Oh, since that's a far-cry of "Childish")

 

With all that being said, it seems like I've no choice but to state my mind here:

 

Well by the looks of things, all of you guys are far more experienced than me, in terms of cards, and post counts, and I'm glad that none of it went to your heads when agrueing about something. But by looking at my experience, well it's easy for me to get attacked. But as the subject of this thread suggests, this thread is basicly "What NOT to post", as an annoucement, well that's how I see it, but it turns out to be an disscussion of people's style of "Critisicm" or "Critiqes". Unless that's what the original creator's plan all along.

 

So when I read this annoucement, I was expecting mainly questions, not arguements. But because of the agruments, I noticed that the tone/use of words, of the creator, Phantom Roxas (speaking of Kingdom Hearts, does anyone know any good tips for 358/2 days?) was becoming more harsh, which I think led to him becomming more strict with the way he critiques cards. But if I'm wrong, apologizes.

 

With all that said, I think I should post my opinion on this somewhat childish thread.

 

Now I don't see what your position on YCM is a MOD or what, but if you are a MOD for the Realistic Cards section, then I think I can see why you made the rules the way they are. To keep down on pointless comments, and stuff, so you made it when we say something about a card, it isn't just about one particular subject, such as the OCG errors, or Rating a card, you forced us to make 2 or more subjects. So anything like "There's too much going on" isn't allowed, and would be considered SPAM. Correct?

 

Well if this is your plan Roxas, hats off to you. But you think you can ease off a little bit if someone doesn't follow your rules. And quite possibly the warning system too?

[Phantom Roxas]

Yes, I'm trying to keep down on the pointless comments to encourage people to improve the way the post. Seeing as you have three stars, you will be treated as a new member, so if a time comes where I will have to warn you, I will only give a 20% warn.

[Frybread002]

............umm........thank you..........but I'll be blunt.......I'm not sure if your being generous.......of if your scaring me......but thanks..

 

Aside from me shaking in my boots:

 

Seriously man, lighten up on rules a bit. Now this here is more of a suggestion, but if there's and obisiouly dead thread (lets say 2 to 3 years) wouldn't it make sense to delete a thread. Since after finishing a couple of cards myself, I've posted them in the Finished Sets, and I tried to delete the thread, but said an MOD had to do it. So I asked someone to lock it, and quite possibly to delete it.

 

With that being said, wouldn't it kind of cut down on the spamming by asking an user to delete his thread if he so desire's it?