What NOT to post

[Phantom Roxas]

Members can't delete their threads. Only mods have the ability to do so, and we usually don't do that anyway. We just lock it and be done with it.

[Frybread002]

Well I already know that an MOD is the only one who can delete, I'm just wondering if it'll help if an MOD deletes any dead threads

[usetheforcehan]

Well I already know that an MOD is the only one who can delete' date=' I'm just wondering if it'll help [b']if an MOD deletes any dead threads[/b]

 

There are MANY dead threads just in 1 section. And a MOD is just a lone Guardian just barely keeping his/her section free of Troll, Spammer, etc... You can't hope a single MOD delete ALL dead threads.

 

Well... maybe it can if the YCM server has limited amount of hard-disk space and YCM website owner will have to joint forces with other MODs to delete the dead threads for freeing a couple of Giga or Terra byte in its server.

[-Griffin]

Well I already know that an MOD is the only one who can delete' date=' I'm just wondering if it'll help [b']if an MOD deletes any dead threads[/b]

 

There are MANY dead threads just in 1 section. And a MOD is just a lone Guardian just barely keeping his/her section free of Troll, Spammer, etc... You can't hope a single MOD delete ALL dead threads.

 

Well... maybe it can if the YCM server has limited amount of hard-disk space and YCM website owner will have to joint forces with other MODs to delete the dead threads for freeing a couple of Giga or Terra byte in its server.

 

YCM has a policy of using lock instead of delete in all but extreme situations.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Yes' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

Why are posts that "only cover OCG correction" wrong while posts that only cover any other single subsection of card making aren't? Why is OCG so god damn unimportant and valueless? Why have you been totally ignoring all arguments against this ludicrous rule?

 

Of course, the answer should lie in your mindless compliance with whatever Icyblue says when it comes to topics you don't give a rat's ass about, mainly anything to do with Realistic Cards, when Icyblue doesn't like OCG because quite simply, he's bad at it. You've made a total of TWO topics other than this one in Realistic Cards. I'll be open to any other explanations from you, but this's what I'm going with until I get them.

 

I'm calling this rule a total abuse of power to control others' values, and I won't stop until permabanned or until these anti-OCG rules are disestablished.

 

No I'm not stickying this one like I do them all. The current sticky slots are full (4 maximum).

 

Ive noticed that despite my best efforts to keep bland and ignorant posts down (such as the crazy tightness of a specific rule that was always there). There is a slight loophole that's getting to me.

 

And that's that people put the bare minimum on what they can about a card' date=' and merely comment on OCG only, resulting in very little direction for every cardmaker here.

 

Their effects ultimately suffer due to the strain on this whole OCG garbage since they care so much about how people see their wording, and balance also takes a relative beating due to fallacies in card design that have no merit whatsoever.

 

Now... I've got 2 solutions that should end it unless people want to step up and offer another solution that solves this dillema (you must post here; any and all PM or MSN messages will be disregarded).

 

My Solution

 

* Option A: Automatic 50% Warning for any and all users who dodge the hole and continue as normal. Such warning will be labeled as something I havent yet figured out. Custom though. This means 2 such posts is an obvious 3-day ban no questions asked.

* Option B: Ignore the loophole and warn any and all posts by a single user regardless on how much warnings he/she may have and continue labeling them as +20% Mild Spamming by default.

 

 

Well... Yeah, talk it amongst yourselves. And if you don't like Option A or B, offer another alternative that solves the problem.[/quote']

 

 

So basically, 50% to anyone who posts anything pertaining to your weak point in card making no matter what?

[-Griffin]

Rule suggestion:

The rules stay just as Icy/Roxas said, but exceptions are made if the poster of the thread wants it. They can have their values, but the standard values will be what has been accepted by the moderation staff.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

How about just having rules against OCG for threads here which specifically state that they don't want their OCG commented on?

[usetheforcehan]

Why are posts that "only cover OCG correction" wrong while posts that only cover any other single subsection of card making aren't? Why is OCG so god damn unimportant and valueless? Why have you been totally ignoring all arguments against this ludicrous rule?

 

I agree with Polaris in terms of OCG. OCG is important' date=' because with the right OCG other people can easily read and understand the true meaning of the created card effects. I myself as a newbie learn many benefit from the OCG corrections that came from many notable user such as Rag, Jolta, Love CC, and other.

 

In short, OCG Correction lead to simplicity and better understanding of the cards and should not be banned in the future.

 

 

 

How about just having rules against OCG for threads here which specifically state that they don't want their OCG commented on?

 

This is an appropriated solution. If people don't want their thread to have an OCG comments, then they have to STATED that they don't want it in the 1st Post (or in the thread title). You have my Vote on this one. ;)

[Guest JoshIcy]

Rule suggestion:

The rules stay just as Icy/Roxas said' date=' but exceptions are made if the poster of the thread wants it. They can have their values, but the standard values will be what has been accepted by the moderation staff.

[/quote']

 

This is a given. But... If a person posts a suggestion that is identical or a slight tweak according to what has been posted. Does that not cause conflict of interest between the different grammar sets? Resulting in Spam?

 

Btw, according to Polaris' suggestions we'd have to segregate the Grammar Nazi's and everyone else... AGAIN! Not happening.

[Phantom Roxas]

Yes' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

Why are posts that "only cover OCG correction" wrong while posts that only cover any other single subsection of card making aren't? Why is OCG so god damn unimportant and valueless? Why have you been totally ignoring all arguments against this ludicrous rule?

 

Of course, the answer should lie in your mindless compliance with whatever Icyblue says when it comes to topics you don't give a rat's ass about, mainly anything to do with Realistic Cards, when Icyblue doesn't like OCG because quite simply, he's bad at it. You've made a total of TWO topics other than this one in Realistic Cards. I'll be open to any other explanations from you, but this's what I'm going with until I get them.

 

I'm calling this rule a total abuse of power to control others' values, and I won't stop until permabanned or until these anti-OCG rules are disestablished.

 

Most people focus on OCG correction, and as Crab has stated, it's the least important feature of the card so long as you can understand what the card does. You can rant about a book simply because it has terrible grammar, but what is your opinion on that book itself? You can comment on the terrible grammar, but it's pointless since you're not even bothering to fix the grammar, and even if you did, what do you think of the book to begin with? Quite a lot of people have made these kinds of posts before I even became a mod, and I'm just tired of it.

 

"Mindless compliance?" Please, provide evidence because I tend to keep separate from Icy in certain topics. I've actually only made one other thread in RC, but before you can use that to strengthen your argument, I have made threads in other sections of Custom Cards, mostly Written Cards. Yes, that's a section that lives on OCG, but the section doesn't suffer from the constant problems this section, as more people visit Realistic Cards than Written Cards, which causes Written Cards to have noticeably less amounts of spam than Realistic Cards.

 

My aim here is to get people to improve the way they post. I'm lenient on newer members, and there was a time period that allowed people to adjust to this change. Power abuse or not, I am trying to reduce the level of spam.

 

EDIT: I have realized that 50% is indeed far too much, so consider me an idiot for being so late. Regardless, the posts detailed in the first post will still be considered spam-worthy, but only for a 20% warn. This allows people more chances to improve themselves without being banned.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Most people focus on OCG correction' date=' and as Crab has stated, it's the least important feature of the card so long as you can understand what the card does.

[/quote']

 

Why? Its "importance" is clearly subject to opinion, you should know that much from this thread alone. Nevertheless, important or not, it's essential for Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards. Not using OCG's like not using ATK, DEF, an Attribute, a Type, et cetera on a given monster. It's critical to keep true to cards. First we're ditching OCG. Sure. What next? Hmmmmm? Doesn't take much for one to realize we're sliding away from the realm of custom Yu-Gi-Oh cards actually having to resemble Yu-Gi-Oh cards.

 

Sure, I can see this sort of rule flying in AoC where nobody really gives a sheet about anything, but Realistic Cards is supposed to have certain standards of REALISM.

 

You can rant about a book simply because it has terrible grammar' date=' but what is your opinion on that book itself?[/quote']

 

Want me to tell you something funny? The "books" in question here have their effects and costs constructed entirely from pre-packaged elements. They all just take any combination of different counters, different chain links, different tokens, different locations, different Types, different Attributes, different ATK/DEF, different Levels, different names, different card text fragments, different Life Point conditions, different turn conditions, different summoning conditions, etc, etc. You're confined to these pre-packaged elements.

 

Sure you can play around with them, have custom locations, link various effects with your card's themes, etc, but the end result is inevitable. These same elements appear again and again. How much more "interesting" can they be than the different ways in which we communicate them? The ways in which we communicate them are important.

 

You can comment on the terrible grammar' date=' but it's pointless since you're not even bothering to fix the grammar[/quote']

 

I sort of took it as a given that one would be obliged to be bothered to fix the grammar if they're to comment on it. I'm all for genociding people who simply post "OCG NEEDS WORK", don't tell the author how to do so, and leave. These posts, however, aren't bad BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATION TO OCG. They're bad BECAUSE THEY'RE VAGUE AND UNCONSTRUCTIVE. Please note the difference, please note the roots of why these bad posts are bad.

 

and even if you did' date=' what do you think of the book to begin with? Quite a lot of people have made these kinds of posts before I even became a mod, and I'm just tired of it.[/quote']

 

I'll think of the rest of the given "book" what I'll think of it, and I'll be sure to tell the rated user my thoughts if I go back to rating. However, the reason I'm up-in-arms here isn't because I don't disagree with vague posts, it's because you guys are making out OCG and constructive posts relating to it into an offense.

 

"Mindless compliance?" Please' date=' provide evidence because I tend to keep separate from Icy in certain topics. I've actually only made one other thread in RC, but before you can use that to strengthen your argument, I have made threads in other sections of Custom Cards, mostly Written Cards. Yes, that's a section that lives on OCG, but the section doesn't suffer from the constant problems this section, as more people visit Realistic Cards than Written Cards, which causes Written Cards to have noticeably less amounts of spam than Realistic Cards.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, I threw that "mindless compliance" part in there for the most part in response to your having ignored a good number of issues I and others might've raised while generating various two-or-three-liners throughout the thread in response to the issues you were willing to acknowledge. Nice to see we're branching out.

 

Anyway, I'm all for structuring Realistic Cards' response quality into something similar to what we're seeing in Written Cards, but I think that punishing OCG-related comments is a crude generalization that won't fix the problem. Punish vague and unconstructive posts, not constructive OCG-related posts. Apologies for having to take some of my issues here to a personal level, but I really do believe that the root of this incorrect and random attack on OCG was entirely established on a personal level. Using power to punish people for your personal opinions is abuse. More the case with Icy than with you.

 

My aim here is to get people to improve the way they post. I'm lenient on newer members' date=' and there was a time period that allowed people to adjust to this change. Power abuse or not, I am trying to reduce the level of spam.[/quote']

 

You're doing it wrong. Oh, and try to avoid using the word "spam", especially in punishments, it's way too vague and subjective.

 

EDIT: I have realized that 50% is indeed far too much' date=' so consider an idiot for being so late. Regardless, the posts detailed in the first post will still be considered spam-worthy, but only for a 20% warn. This allows people more chances to improve themselves without being banned.

[/quote']

 

You're not an idiot, you're just fairly quick to judge on deep issues. You walked on one of YCM's eggshells, so to speak. Easy for someone in power to do. It's just that a certain degree of re-evaluation is going to be required here. K?

 

Btw' date=' according to Polaris' suggestions we'd have to segregate the Grammar Nazi's and everyone else... AGAIN! Not happening.[/quote']

 

Segregation? Hardly. It's just a little respectful indication the threadmaker uses to indicate that they would not like criticism on their OCG, which people who use OCG as a part of their evaluations can respectfully choose to work around instead of being bashed in the face with heavy warnings. Not exactly a great way to reward these members' skill is it?

[Frybread002]

EDIT: I have realized that 50% is indeed far too much, so consider an idiot for being so late. Regardless, the posts detailed in the first post will still be considered spam-worthy, but only for a 20% warn. This allows people more chances to improve themselves without being banned.

 

 

Umm.........POLARIS.......I think the idiot both of you are refering to might be me, since I was the who suggested Phantom Roxas to "Lighten Up" on the rules a bit.

[Chaos Impact™]

what about people re-explaining things on threads

for example if someone has done something wrong like posting an attachment people have posted the exact thing 1 hour later after the first person has said it

this should count as spam

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Yo Roxas, you replied to that Thai Dance Commander PM I sent you, so while you're at it how about changing up those rules according to common sense or telling me why you can't?

 

EDIT: I have realized that 50% is indeed far too much' date=' so consider an idiot for being so late. Regardless, the posts detailed in the first post will still be considered spam-worthy, but only for a 20% warn. This allows people more chances to improve themselves without being banned.

[/quote']

 

Umm.........POLARIS.......I think the idiot both of you are refering to might be me, since I was the who suggested Phantom Roxas to "Lighten Up" on the rules a bit.

 

That wouldn't make very much sense considering that he was agreeing with you when he made that post, I took it as him blaming himself for being late in doing so or something.

 

Nevertheless, I don't think the problem here is how heavy the warnings are, but what people're getting warned for.

[Frybread002]

Yo Roxas' date=' you replied to that Thai Dance Commander PM I sent you, so while you're at it how about changing up those rules according to common sense or telling me why you can't?

 

EDIT: I have realized that 50% is indeed far too much' date=' so consider an idiot for being so late. Regardless, the posts detailed in the first post will still be considered spam-worthy, but only for a 20% warn. This allows people more chances to improve themselves without being banned.

[/quote']

 

Umm.........POLARIS.......I think the idiot both of you are refering to might be me, since I was the who suggested Phantom Roxas to "Lighten Up" on the rules a bit.

 

That wouldn't make very much sense considering that he was agreeing with you when he made that post, I took it as him blaming himself for being late in doing so or something.

 

Nevertheless, I don't think the problem here is how heavy the warnings are, but what people're getting warned for.

 

I don't know.......I'm pretty sure that he was refering to me here though......but who knows? Aside from that: Someone, anyone, who has there questions/concerns, please step up and ask.

[Phantom Roxas]

Yo Roxas' date=' you replied to that Thai Dance Commander PM I sent you, so while you're at it how about changing up those rules according to common sense or telling me why you can't?

[/quote']

 

And my reply was that Thai Dance Commander made no sense in context. However, I see no reason to change the rules even more.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

[spoiler=You wouldn't, would you? Guess you're incapable of reading my post or something? I'm pretty sure it has reasons, just super duper pooper scooper sayin'.]

 

Most people focus on OCG correction' date=' and as Crab has stated, it's the least important feature of the card so long as you can understand what the card does.

[/quote']

 

Why? Its "importance" is clearly subject to opinion, you should know that much from this thread alone. Nevertheless, important or not, it's essential for Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards. Not using OCG's like not using ATK, DEF, an Attribute, a Type, et cetera on a given monster. It's critical to keep true to cards. First we're ditching OCG. Sure. What next? Hmmmmm? Doesn't take much for one to realize we're sliding away from the realm of custom Yu-Gi-Oh cards actually having to resemble Yu-Gi-Oh cards.

 

Sure, I can see this sort of rule flying in AoC where nobody really gives a s*** about anything, but Realistic Cards is supposed to have certain standards of REALISM.

 

You can rant about a book simply because it has terrible grammar' date=' but what is your opinion on that book itself?[/quote']

 

Want me to tell you something funny? The "books" in question here have their effects and costs constructed entirely from pre-packaged elements. They all just take any combination of different counters, different chain links, different tokens, different locations, different Types, different Attributes, different ATK/DEF, different Levels, different names, different card text fragments, different Life Point conditions, different turn conditions, different summoning conditions, etc, etc. You're confined to these pre-packaged elements.

 

Sure you can play around with them, have custom locations, link various effects with your card's themes, etc, but the end result is inevitable. These same elements appear again and again. How much more "interesting" can they be than the different ways in which we communicate them? The ways in which we communicate them are important.

 

You can comment on the terrible grammar' date=' but it's pointless since you're not even bothering to fix the grammar[/quote']

 

I sort of took it as a given that one would be obliged to be bothered to fix the grammar if they're to comment on it. I'm all for genociding people who simply post "OCG NEEDS WORK", don't tell the author how to do so, and leave. These posts, however, aren't bad BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATION TO OCG. They're bad BECAUSE THEY'RE VAGUE AND UNCONSTRUCTIVE. Please note the difference, please note the roots of why these bad posts are bad.

 

and even if you did' date=' what do you think of the book to begin with? Quite a lot of people have made these kinds of posts before I even became a mod, and I'm just tired of it.[/quote']

 

I'll think of the rest of the given "book" what I'll think of it, and I'll be sure to tell the rated user my thoughts if I go back to rating. However, the reason I'm up-in-arms here isn't because I don't disagree with vague posts, it's because you guys are making out OCG and constructive posts relating to it into an offense.

 

"Mindless compliance?" Please' date=' provide evidence because I tend to keep separate from Icy in certain topics. I've actually only made one other thread in RC, but before you can use that to strengthen your argument, I have made threads in other sections of Custom Cards, mostly Written Cards. Yes, that's a section that lives on OCG, but the section doesn't suffer from the constant problems this section, as more people visit Realistic Cards than Written Cards, which causes Written Cards to have noticeably less amounts of spam than Realistic Cards.

[/quote']

 

Yeah, I threw that "mindless compliance" part in there for the most part in response to your having ignored a good number of issues I and others might've raised while generating various two-or-three-liners throughout the thread in response to the issues you were willing to acknowledge. Nice to see we're branching out.

 

Anyway, I'm all for structuring Realistic Cards' response quality into something similar to what we're seeing in Written Cards, but I think that punishing OCG-related comments is a crude generalization that won't fix the problem. Punish vague and unconstructive posts, not constructive OCG-related posts. Apologies for having to take some of my issues here to a personal level, but I really do believe that the root of this incorrect and random attack on OCG was entirely established on a personal level. Using power to punish people for your personal opinions is abuse. More the case with Icy than with you.

 

My aim here is to get people to improve the way they post. I'm lenient on newer members' date=' and there was a time period that allowed people to adjust to this change. Power abuse or not, I am trying to reduce the level of spam.[/quote']

 

You're doing it wrong. Oh, and try to avoid using the word "spam", especially in punishments, it's way too vague and subjective.

 

EDIT: I have realized that 50% is indeed far too much' date=' so consider an idiot for being so late. Regardless, the posts detailed in the first post will still be considered spam-worthy, but only for a 20% warn. This allows people more chances to improve themselves without being banned.

[/quote']

 

You're not an idiot, you're just fairly quick to judge on deep issues. You walked on one of YCM's eggshells, so to speak. Easy for someone in power to do. It's just that a certain degree of re-evaluation is going to be required here. K?

 

Btw' date=' according to Polaris' suggestions we'd have to segregate the Grammar Nazi's and everyone else... AGAIN! Not happening.[/quote']

 

Segregation? Hardly. It's just a little respectful indication the threadmaker uses to indicate that they would not like criticism on their OCG, which people who use OCG as a part of their evaluations can respectfully choose to work around instead of being bashed in the face with heavy warnings. Not exactly a great way to reward these members' skill is it?

 

 

 

Oh, and Thai Dance Commanders make sense in EVERY context.

[OlympianLord24]

Whats spamming in detailed description.

[Phantom Roxas]

The most basic description is posting things that are entirely unnecessary.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Constructive criticism's "entirely unnecessary"? That's what I'm getting from your first post and your latest post here. Yeah, the real definition for "spam" would fall closer to "posts moderators don't like and will therefore punish you for regardless of whether or not you should actually be punished."

[Guest JoshIcy]

Haha way to take stuff out of context Polaris.

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm saying spam in general is pointless points, not constructive criticism.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Let me spell it out for you. OCG correction = constructive criticism = not "pointless", hence "constructive".

 

The argument that OCG correction isn't constructive is flawed. OCG correction helps to improve one's OCG, it's constructive by definition.

 

The argument that OCG correction can "be considered spam" is wrong. As it's the given basis of why the rule was put into place, the rule MUST be deleted.

 

Haha way to take stuff out of context Polaris.

 

Um, not in the least?

 

Drop this stubborn charade and admit that this rule was only established based on your personal feelings towards the subject. If you don't, we can't fix the problems here and have a more effective set of rules. Members' views of your level of competence are extremely likely to be unchanged.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Not personal feelings. I've said very little, because by definition I believe you are harassing us. I don't say much on these issues out of fear people like you will berate them, no matter what. So thus, "Obey or Leave" for people such as yourself is the only option I'm left with. (I'm a softy, so what? I like being this way).

 

Let me draw you a picture shall we?

Grammar (I will not say OCG anymore as Shinobi Phoenix is correct on this subject) is constructive yes. It teaches proper language and remedies said problem. But like some vaccines, it can overlap other issues in the system. Thus becoming more like a virus.

 

But, if we completely get rid of it said issue never gets fixed. So if we remove it, grammar suffers. If we let it run rampant, everything else suffers. What this rule does is control it. So everything has a gain, not just grammar.

 

And unlike yourself, who appears to insinuate that "If I can't do it all, I'm getting nothing", this is not the case. Have you even bothered to look at how we moderate it? No you haven't. Have you even bothered to listen that we are only strict on this if it's the only content in the post? No, apparently you haven't. And if you have for both of these things, apparently you ARE harassing us to instigate a problem that isn't there.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

And unlike yourself' date=' who appears to insinuate that [b']"If I can't do it all, I'm getting nothing"[/b], this is not the case. Have you even bothered to look at how we moderate it? No you haven't. Have you even bothered to listen that we are only strict on this if it's the only content in the post? No, apparently you haven't. And if you have for both of these things, apparently you ARE harassing us to instigate a problem that isn't there.

 

I have NO WAY of knowing "how you moderate it". Others' warnings aren't visible to me, all I know for certain is that people have been warned with content other than OCG correction in their posts and that you've made a thread communicating the degree to which you'd punish people for posting OCG corrections and other content you'd merely have to say "isn't enough" to severely punish.

 

How much is enough? It's up to you based on whatever the given situation may be. This creates a window for bias and discrimination.

 

Furthermore, the bigger picture here is that OCG fixes, which are totally constructive criticism, are being made into a punishable offense more than comments on any other single specific aspect of a card, when there's no reason to explain why it's being punished more than single specific-aspect comments for other aspects of cards other than a desire to prioritize what we should value in a given card based on your own personal values.

 

 

But' date=' if we completely get rid of it said issue never gets fixed. So if we remove it, grammar suffers. If we let it run rampant, everything else suffers. What this rule does is control it. So everything has a gain, not just grammar.[/quote']

 

If we were to remove criticism on balance, everything else would gain, not just balance, and balance would suffer. The problem here is that balance is extremely important in the make-up of a Yu-Gi-Oh! Card and that any single component, like balance or OCG, can't be removed because the result will not be a balanced (no pun intended) representation of a Yu-Gi-Oh! card.

 

This is Yugiohcardmaker.net. What you're doing is wrong in my eyes and I implore you to change it to benefit the section.