Banlists and Theory Changes

[Blake]

Honestly, I think that including the right for any old member to post a list they think is good for the game is a horrible idea. Half the people that post them have no clue as to how they should manage the gamestate, and don't even understand how to hit decks properly.

 

The fact that someone can type up ideas and think they're good doesn't mean that they're actually remotely intelligent ones.

 

I understand keeping it so that you can post a format or something, but I'd honestly just get rid of the personal banlsit part of it altogether. It doesn't promote discussion, it's just the same set of newbies/stubborn members posting about how they think Shock Master or Premature Burial are good for the game, and then being told they're wrong by everyone, leading to an argument where neither side budges and inch and successfully wastes pages and time that benefits no one, yet neither want to give up because they think the other side might not be as thickheaded as they appear.

 

We should have a single banlist thread for each upcoming format, and we should only have it within like a month before the change, how I see it. Any sooner than that means the format probably isnt developed enough to predict/wishlist realistic changes.

 

tl;dr There should be two banlist topics (One OCG, One TCG) per format, should only be open a certain amount before the new format (say, a month), and the section's banlist-esque topics should be more for different format ideas. Unless they're signifigantly changing the gamestate in some way, it's just a personal banlist that's masquerading as a format.

 

Example of not okay:

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/309117-cards-i-think-should-be-banned/

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/309676-my-personal-take-on-the-next-tcg-banlist/

 

Example of okay (I use the term loosely, mind you):

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/291729-may-now-be-locked-the-original-chance-format/

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/299898-character-deck-format-updated-1125-over-70-characters/

 

Only covering banlist stuff here, not the theory threads.

[Just Crouton]

tl;dr There should be two banlist topics (One OCG, One TCG) per format, should only be open a certain amount before the new format (say, a month), and the section's banlist-esque topics should be more for different format ideas. Unless they're signifigantly changing the gamestate in some way, it's just a personal banlist that's masquerading as a format.

_____

 

The fact that this thread has to exist to suggest such a rule is stupid, because this rule should already exist. It's a common sense thing, really.

 

There should always be stickied threads to discuss the upcoming banlists when it comes close to the next banlist change.

 

Support.

[evilfusion]

Those WERE in the rules in the TCG section, then Pika, probably weary of constantly dealing with such threads every banlist cycle, created the Banlist and Theory section for them to go in, and cut down on the flood for the main section, as well as a section for other topics that fell within a grey area of the TCG rules.

 

That is, I assume Pika created it. I'm not entirely sure when it was added.

[Just Crouton]

Those WERE in the rules in the TCG section, then Pika, probably weary of constantly dealing with such threads every banlist cycle, created the Banlist and Theory section for them to go in, and cut down on the flood for the main section, as well as a section for other topics that fell within a grey area of the TCG rules.

 

That is, I assume Pika created it. I'm not entirely sure when it was added.

____

 

Well, why not update B&T to say "Only 1 TCG/OCG banlist discussion thread per banlist season. Post in those two threads only with list ideas. Dupe threads get locked."

[goddamnit names are a pain]

____

 

Well, why not update B&T to say "Only 1 TCG/OCG banlist discussion thread per banlist season. Post in those two threads only with list ideas. Dupe threads get locked."

That doesn't sound right, because you mix the stupid with the intelligent.

I think each person should be able to make their own threads, because a bunch of hectic chaos on on thread just sounds terrible.

I am onboard with the "relevant timeframe" thing though. I don't want to hear "this card is going to be banned" three months early.

[Just Crouton]

That doesn't sound right, because you mix the stupid with the intelligent.

I think each person should be able to make their own threads, because a bunch of hectic chaos on on thread just sounds terrible.

I am onboard with the "relevant timeframe" thing though. I don't want to hear "this card is going to be banned" three months early.

____

 

Yeah, but, when the banlist finally comes out, TCG then has several pointless threads on page 1, instead of just one that the mod can lock, unsticky, and say "banlist up. Discussion over."

[Catterjune]

Honestly, I think that including the right for any old member to post a list they think is good for the game is a horrible idea.

... Why?

The fact that someone can type up ideas and think they're good doesn't mean that they're actually remotely intelligent ones.

Honestly, I don't think it's any different than any random idiot writing a terrible decklist, or a terrible card, or a terrible story, or a terrible RP. Just do what you'd do there.

It doesn't promote discussion, it's just the same set of newbies/stubborn members posting about how they think Shock Master or Premature Burial are good for the game, and then being told they're wrong by everyone, leading to an argument where neither side budges and inch and successfully wastes pages and time that benefits no one, yet neither want to give up because they think the other side might not be as thickheaded as they appear.

And why is this a problem?

[evilfusion]

It is a problem, but it's not a problem that should be outlawed from occurring. You will get idiots posting whatever nonsense regardless of the section or rules, and one thing that you're overlooking is that some of these "idiots" actually can take something away from being told their views are wrong, and begin to improve their viewpoints. And then you'll get the subgroup that'll outright refuse to listen to reason.

 

How you, as smarter, more reasonable members, approach these stubborn, seemingly ignorant members is key to how you expand the skills of the player base here. Stomping on every differing opinion until the member begs for mercy rarely improves the forum, and some people have felt "locked out" of discussions because they don't always follow the logic of the "elite" players, and get kicked repeatedly when they try to get an explanation, or voice their opinions.

[Miror B]

How do we judge intelligence before the user opens their mouth again?

[Catterjune]

It is a problem, but it's not a problem that should be outlawed from occurring.

Ah! I may have misspoken.

Creating an atmosphere that does not promote discussion is a problem.

But having a place where "newbies post about how they think Shock Master or Premature Burial are good for the game and being told they're wrong by everyone" isn't the problem. It's really how it should be.

The "leading to an argument" part we could do without as well. My way when I was TCG mod was to just mod and raise warns. Not sure what the current staff does/should do to alleviate the "leading to an argument" problem.

But basically, discussions are fine, being an idiot is fine, being smart is fine. Starting an argument is not fine.

... In my opinion.