There seem to be two issues that I see popping up here that keep getting brought up. The first is that its 'no big deal because someone else always tags the cards in the second post.' While this is true, it is no excuse for being lazy. There are janitors that clean the halls in my apartment building and if I leave my trash out in the hall, they will pick it up, but they shouldn't have to. I should take it down to the dumpster like the rules of my lease say I should. Just because someone will clean up after me doesn't mean I should forget about the rules.
The second issue stems from this notion of the rules. Its clear that some think that the tag rule shouldn't be there, but the tag rule is not the ultimate issue here. People are getting warnings about the tag rule because they are not reading ANY of the rules AT ALL. If they did then they would have read the simple explaination of tags and used them. Its just highlight and click, its not hard. People are not failing to use tags because its hard, or difficult to remember, they are failing to use tags because they are failing to read the rules, and for that a warning is in order. The tag rule simply provides a visible indicator when someone failed to read the rules.
Sorry for the long post, but we either need to have rules that are helpful and read/enforced, or no rules at all and let this place desintegrate into 4chan. I personally prefer the first option.
Well, since all of the people that go/post to the rules forum feel this rule is a good and useful one, then it is. Their opinion on the matter is the one that counts, and I seemed to have been alone in mine.
The only flaw with the card tag rule is when the poster cannot spell.
It is obvious why it is necessary, and obvious why it needs to be a rule. It helps draw attention to what is relavent in the question. It also helps make sure that people know for sure which card is being referenced. Sometimes names of cards are similar enough that someone could get mixed up and give the wrong information.
Many questions can be answered just by the poster reading his own card tags. Drawing attention to this feature to new users thus helps direct them to many of there answers beofre they ask.
It really is not hard to Card Tag things anyways. There is a button for it.
On a similar subject, why isn't there a Spoiler Tag button? If there is a rule for it, it is kind of mean not to have a button for it. Not everyone knows right away how to make spoiler tags. Why did we get Dice tags before Spoiler tags as a button?
On a similar subject, why isn't there a Spoiler Tag button? If there is a rule for it, it is kind of mean not to have a button for it. Not everyone knows right away how to make spoiler tags. Why did we get Dice tags before Spoiler tags as a button?
Mostly because spoiler tags aren't much of a problem. There's never been evidence that the spoiler tags are hard for people to use. Nor are they the kind of tags where it's common to use them multiple times in a post, usually there's only one use per post. Both of these reasons contribute to why I never asked to get a button added.
But what about a new rule? You only have to use tags for cards that aren't widley known. So we don't have to use them on cards like tolarian, gaea's cradle, yawmgmoth's bargain/will, fow, stp ***, duals, painland, deed, vindicate etc.
So how do Tolarian Academy and Reflecting Pool interact? We know what Academy and Pool do, but the answer depends on a very, very fine detail in the wording. (Edit: AoK is correct below, since Academy's ability is defined to produce blue mana, but I can think of two different reasonable Academy wordings off the top of my head that would change the answer. :x)
Two good things have come of this, though: I'm seeing if we can't get [c] tags, like the WotC boards have, to make the tags even shorter; and as many of you have noticed weird card tags with the WotC logo next to them yesterday, I think it's safe to tell you that Hannes is working on a way for card tags in specific forums to override the user default and use Gatherer, plus hunting down why Magiccards.info is incorrect on a few cards. Of course, with the server going whump last night, he needs to focus on that instead; after the server is behaving we'll see these changes if possible because Hannes is just that awesome.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
After the server mess is cleaned up, I believe I'll ask about that. I think that could be fairly helpful, especially to those of us who post in:
-Custom Cards, judges, creators, and players of the casual games -Deck strategy forums -Colosseum -Entertainment
Thoughts?
@Woap: without cardtags, I have to go with my best guess...which tells me that the Reflecting Pool doesn't care if you have artifacts in play or not, you can still tap it for U because Academy COULD tap for blue. At least, it works with Vivid lands with no counters...and Shimmering Grotto...
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
From my experience watching Entertainment for exactly such problems. The only times spoiler tags haven't been used properly in that forum in the past two years are because of two things: the user not aware they need to be used and typos. One's an honest mistake, the other is an issue with people not reading the rules, not an issue with the html being too hard to understand.
I've been struggeling whit those stupid spoilers for about 2 weeks before I finaly got them right. I always had to correct my post because I did something wrong. Their just horrible imo. So a button would be more then helping.
Really? They're 'spoiler' tags, you just put the word 'spoiler' in html brackets. I'm not really catching the difficult part there, honestly.
Note that I'm not against getting a button for spoiler tags, on the contrary, I think it'd be handy. I just don't see there being any huge need for it.
But what about a new rule? You only have to use tags for cards that aren't widley known. So we don't have to use them on cards like tolarian, gaea's cradle, yawmgmoth's bargain/will, fow, stp ***, duals, painland, deed, vindicate etc. If you don't know these cards, there's a good chance that you shouldn't be answering the question in the first place.
This rule would lead to inconsistent enforcement. Who decides what "widely known" is? Cards that have been "widely known" to Vintage players for years might not be "widely known" to someone who has only been drafting for a month, whereas that latter player may assume all Shadowmoor cards are "widely known" to the same Vintage players that have no idea what they do.
We chose the standard we have (tag everything except basic land) because there's no grey area.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Really? They're 'spoiler' tags, you just put the word 'spoiler' in html brackets. I'm not really catching the difficult part there, honestly.
For people like me (and I'm guessing you) who grew up needing to use html on forums all the time, there isn't a difficult part. The thing is you don't really need to know anything about computers to use them now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These boards need Lucida Blackletter as a font option.
Quote from Soul_Grind »
I just meant that to assume using an arm lock on someone is an example of a peaceful solution is ludicrous.
Quote from PlatedOrnithopter »
To put it simply, women have to seek empowerment, whereas men have to live up to empowerment.
I do not want to post this because I do not want to seem like a crazy card tag zealot or something. (I seemed to come off as more hard core about this than I am)
I was going to suggest that (not as a rule, but as a policy) if it was the persons VERY FIRST post on the forums(or <10). They should NOT give them a warning.
They should still use mod text to say "use tags" and send the person a PM, just not give them a warning. Warnings are intimidating. Especially if its your first post or so.
I do not want to post this because I do not want to seem like a crazy card tag zealot or something. (I seemed to come off as more hard core about this than I am)
I was going to suggest that (not as a rule, but as a policy) if it was the persons VERY FIRST post on the forums(or <10). They should NOT give them a warning.
They should still use mod text to say "use tags" and send the person a PM, just not give them a warning. Warnings are intimidating. Especially if its your first post or so.
(who knows maybe it is already a policy)
Not a bad idea, actually. I would have to leave that up to individual moderators to implement, though, as it's been a long-standing rule for quite awhile. Sounds like something I would do.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
Well, since it seems appropriate to ask and semi related, is there any chance we could change over from magiccards.info to Gatherer as the default card lookup for card tags? As stated earlier, magiccards.info isn't the best at updates. , and this could get confusing for some people. It would also be easier on the newbies who don't know how and/or people who don't bother to change their settings for whatever reason.
Well, the player who's only playing for a month shouldn't answer rules questions in the first place.
Why not? If somebody asks a question about an interaction they're familiar with and they're confident in their response, why shouldn't they be allowed to answer? I'd really rather not be in the business of having to tell people "you haven't been playing long enough to answer rules questions even though you're right."
It's true that this would make it hard to determen witch cards are knows and witch aren't. But won't this grey area be pretty small?
What's the purpose in even introducing the grey area to begin with? I don't think it will in any way improve the forum, but will instead prove to be detrimental.
And if such a rule were introduced, I can guarantee you within the first month somebody will get a warning/infraction and say "Well, I knew what that card did, so I just assumed everyone else did too."
Players who've been playing for some time kinda feel witch cards are known and witch not.
Not everybody who's been playing for some time has been playing the same format with the same cards. I'd been playing Vintage for years and knew 6E rules like the back of my hand and honestly couldn't tell you what 99% of the cards in Kamigawa block did. I don't think that means I should be disqualified from answering questions about the block.
Give me 10 cards you assume I'll know and I'll say how many I do know.
That only proves what cards you know. Such knowledge can't necessarily be extrapolated to everyone visiting the rulings forum, certainly not to the point where we can start making rules based on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Binary is right. It would be to hard to define "commonly know cards." The wording of cards can be subtle, so even if you know what it does, you might not know EXACTLY what it does.
Such ambiguity should not be in a rule.
Like, can you tell me without looking at the card, if you can exile your own Juggernaut AFTER it dealt damage on the attack?
Well, because 99% of the people may think they know it correctly but actually don’t. I’ve been playing a lot with noobs and have seen some mistakes been made over and over again. They understand the it enough to play, but they don’t’ understand it completely. Don’t get me wrong here, if someone would ask what flying does, they can off course explain it. I was talking about the more difficult questions. But then again, their a good chance the person who asked the question didn’t use a widely known card to begin with.
Then how would you propose actually enforcing something like this? Requiring everybody who wants to answer "difficult questions" (which is putting another potential for inconsistent enforcement out there) to go through some approval process by the mods to show that they're sufficiently experienced to answer questions?
I didn’t say that the persons should look at themselves, but at what they think the community knows. I know what exile does, but I don’t assume everyone will so I’ll use tags.
But now we're at the point where a post goes from uninfractable to infractable based on what that individual poster claims the community knows. Do we really want such a vague standard to be the difference between getting an infraction and not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
@ binary: well, I'm a big advocate for a comunity that regulates itself rather then being forced to do something. I belief that people who are of good will can feel from themselves where the line lies. I knew for myself if I was quilified to answer a question or not.
Then we have to start getting into the question of which posters are "of good will."
The problem with these suggestions you're giving is that they're replacing a rule that's clear to everybody and easy to both follow and enforce (tag everything except basic land or you're going to hear from a mod) with so many vague standards that nobody, poster or mod, is going to know what to do with them:
1)Cards only have to be tagged if they're "not commonly known" by people "of good will"
2)Posters should only answer rules questions if they're "sufficiently qualified"
How does instituting something like this benefit the community? If anything I think it would make posters even more afraid to post in the Rulings forum.
"I know the answer to this question, but what if somebody thinks I don't have the experience to answer?"
"I think I know what these cards do, but what if somebody else doesn't and I don't tag them?"
Introducing these kinds of uncertainties into the forum is something I'm not going to be a part of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
@ binary: well, I'm a big advocate for a comunity that regulates itself rather then being forced to do something. I belief that people who are of good will can feel from themselves where the line lies. I knew for myself if I was quilified to answer a question or not.
How is this community going to regulate itself without the mods? It would be impractical to try to do things democraticaly, that would create long term factions and feuds over what is spam and what isn't, and likewise with flaming, trolling, and any other rule you can probably think of. The mods here are strict, but they do a good job. Let them be.
Most of the time people dont spell the name of the card right and then I have to manually type in the name myself to see the card. Almost defeats the purpose of having card tags in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INTO THE RAY OF THE SUN, MARCH OUR HERO, HUNTING THE DARKLORD, REBORN FROM THE BLOOD OF HIS GOD... HIS GOD... THE WARMASTER KRON.
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
We're not going to infract people who are making a good-faith effort to use card tags that don't work for some mechanical reason (most often a trailing space being added). However, that doesn't mean that the rule doesn't have value.
Most of the time people dont spell the name of the card right and then I have to manually type in the name myself to see the card. Almost defeats the purpose of having card tags in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
We cannot infract people for making single, honest mistakes, whether it be in typing or because of whatever reason. The main reason the repeated bad spelling offense exists is for leetspeak or those who intentionally disregard the smallest bit of proper grammar and spelling. The keyword here is intentionally. Also, most browsers have auto-spellcheck, for those of us who have a more difficult time with spelling than others.
I myself am the world's most horrible typist and usually have to edit my posts so that it's not garbled due to poor keyboard skills. I think I've had to fix at least ten errors before clicking "send", and that's this post alone.
If the effort is made, then give people credit for that, at least.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The second issue stems from this notion of the rules. Its clear that some think that the tag rule shouldn't be there, but the tag rule is not the ultimate issue here. People are getting warnings about the tag rule because they are not reading ANY of the rules AT ALL. If they did then they would have read the simple explaination of tags and used them. Its just highlight and click, its not hard. People are not failing to use tags because its hard, or difficult to remember, they are failing to use tags because they are failing to read the rules, and for that a warning is in order. The tag rule simply provides a visible indicator when someone failed to read the rules.
Sorry for the long post, but we either need to have rules that are helpful and read/enforced, or no rules at all and let this place desintegrate into 4chan. I personally prefer the first option.
Sorry for causing a ruckus.
It is obvious why it is necessary, and obvious why it needs to be a rule. It helps draw attention to what is relavent in the question. It also helps make sure that people know for sure which card is being referenced. Sometimes names of cards are similar enough that someone could get mixed up and give the wrong information.
Many questions can be answered just by the poster reading his own card tags. Drawing attention to this feature to new users thus helps direct them to many of there answers beofre they ask.
It really is not hard to Card Tag things anyways. There is a button for it.
On a similar subject, why isn't there a Spoiler Tag button? If there is a rule for it, it is kind of mean not to have a button for it. Not everyone knows right away how to make spoiler tags. Why did we get Dice tags before Spoiler tags as a button?
Mostly because spoiler tags aren't much of a problem. There's never been evidence that the spoiler tags are hard for people to use. Nor are they the kind of tags where it's common to use them multiple times in a post, usually there's only one use per post. Both of these reasons contribute to why I never asked to get a button added.
There's just never been a call for them.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
So how do Tolarian Academy and Reflecting Pool interact? We know what Academy and Pool do, but the answer depends on a very, very fine detail in the wording. (Edit: AoK is correct below, since Academy's ability is defined to produce blue mana, but I can think of two different reasonable Academy wordings off the top of my head that would change the answer. :x)
Two good things have come of this, though: I'm seeing if we can't get [c] tags, like the WotC boards have, to make the tags even shorter; and as many of you have noticed weird card tags with the WotC logo next to them yesterday, I think it's safe to tell you that Hannes is working on a way for card tags in specific forums to override the user default and use Gatherer, plus hunting down why Magiccards.info is incorrect on a few cards. Of course, with the server going whump last night, he needs to focus on that instead; after the server is behaving we'll see these changes if possible because Hannes is just that awesome.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
After the server mess is cleaned up, I believe I'll ask about that. I think that could be fairly helpful, especially to those of us who post in:
-Custom Cards, judges, creators, and players of the casual games
-Deck strategy forums
-Colosseum
-Entertainment
Thoughts?
@Woap: without cardtags, I have to go with my best guess...which tells me that the Reflecting Pool doesn't care if you have artifacts in play or not, you can still tap it for U because Academy COULD tap for blue. At least, it works with Vivid lands with no counters...and Shimmering Grotto...
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.
From my experience watching Entertainment for exactly such problems. The only times spoiler tags haven't been used properly in that forum in the past two years are because of two things: the user not aware they need to be used and typos. One's an honest mistake, the other is an issue with people not reading the rules, not an issue with the html being too hard to understand.
Really? They're 'spoiler' tags, you just put the word 'spoiler' in html brackets. I'm not really catching the difficult part there, honestly.
Note that I'm not against getting a button for spoiler tags, on the contrary, I think it'd be handy. I just don't see there being any huge need for it.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
This rule would lead to inconsistent enforcement. Who decides what "widely known" is? Cards that have been "widely known" to Vintage players for years might not be "widely known" to someone who has only been drafting for a month, whereas that latter player may assume all Shadowmoor cards are "widely known" to the same Vintage players that have no idea what they do.
We chose the standard we have (tag everything except basic land) because there's no grey area.
For people like me (and I'm guessing you) who grew up needing to use html on forums all the time, there isn't a difficult part. The thing is you don't really need to know anything about computers to use them now.
These boards need Lucida Blackletter as a font option.
I was going to suggest that (not as a rule, but as a policy) if it was the persons VERY FIRST post on the forums(or <10). They should NOT give them a warning.
They should still use mod text to say "use tags" and send the person a PM, just not give them a warning. Warnings are intimidating. Especially if its your first post or so.
(who knows maybe it is already a policy)
Not a bad idea, actually. I would have to leave that up to individual moderators to implement, though, as it's been a long-standing rule for quite awhile. Sounds like something I would do.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Why not? If somebody asks a question about an interaction they're familiar with and they're confident in their response, why shouldn't they be allowed to answer? I'd really rather not be in the business of having to tell people "you haven't been playing long enough to answer rules questions even though you're right."
What's the purpose in even introducing the grey area to begin with? I don't think it will in any way improve the forum, but will instead prove to be detrimental.
And if such a rule were introduced, I can guarantee you within the first month somebody will get a warning/infraction and say "Well, I knew what that card did, so I just assumed everyone else did too."
Not everybody who's been playing for some time has been playing the same format with the same cards. I'd been playing Vintage for years and knew 6E rules like the back of my hand and honestly couldn't tell you what 99% of the cards in Kamigawa block did. I don't think that means I should be disqualified from answering questions about the block.
That only proves what cards you know. Such knowledge can't necessarily be extrapolated to everyone visiting the rulings forum, certainly not to the point where we can start making rules based on it.
Such ambiguity should not be in a rule.
Like, can you tell me without looking at the card, if you can exile your own Juggernaut AFTER it dealt damage on the attack?
Then how would you propose actually enforcing something like this? Requiring everybody who wants to answer "difficult questions" (which is putting another potential for inconsistent enforcement out there) to go through some approval process by the mods to show that they're sufficiently experienced to answer questions?
But now we're at the point where a post goes from uninfractable to infractable based on what that individual poster claims the community knows. Do we really want such a vague standard to be the difference between getting an infraction and not?
Then we have to start getting into the question of which posters are "of good will."
The problem with these suggestions you're giving is that they're replacing a rule that's clear to everybody and easy to both follow and enforce (tag everything except basic land or you're going to hear from a mod) with so many vague standards that nobody, poster or mod, is going to know what to do with them:
1)Cards only have to be tagged if they're "not commonly known" by people "of good will"
2)Posters should only answer rules questions if they're "sufficiently qualified"
How does instituting something like this benefit the community? If anything I think it would make posters even more afraid to post in the Rulings forum.
"I know the answer to this question, but what if somebody thinks I don't have the experience to answer?"
"I think I know what these cards do, but what if somebody else doesn't and I don't tag them?"
Introducing these kinds of uncertainties into the forum is something I'm not going to be a part of.
How is this community going to regulate itself without the mods? It would be impractical to try to do things democraticaly, that would create long term factions and feuds over what is spam and what isn't, and likewise with flaming, trolling, and any other rule you can probably think of. The mods here are strict, but they do a good job. Let them be.
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
I myself am the world's most horrible typist and usually have to edit my posts so that it's not garbled due to poor keyboard skills. I think I've had to fix at least ten errors before clicking "send", and that's this post alone.
If the effort is made, then give people credit for that, at least.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.