Well, to be fair on my part, I didn't really say it was the sole reason.
Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on it, but hey, former moderator, see the world through moderation's eyes. It happens
Fair enough, but it did kind of blindside me. You seemed to be agreeing with Urzassedatives' earlier point that the website is falling behind on its use of technological advances and this brave new internet culture, and then followed up by saying that the moderation was too strict, which I took to be a non sequitar. My apologies, although in my defense that was quite a bit to take in.
The thing is, I don't really think "moderation" can be used as a leverage tool for this topic. We can't compare this site's moderation to, say, SCG's, because most of the people going to StarCity just read the articles, and there's very little moderation that can be done; you can't call out someone's bad choices in their article if they just #1'd a PT with their deck, after all.
I was beginning to wonder when the conversation would take that inevitable turn towards blaming the strict moderation for all of the site's woes.
The only way I'd blame strict moderation for the anti-pro sentiment of the userbase is that we can't call idiots f***** idiots and have to use long flowery words.
Sometimes I just want to call the stupid for what they are without having to make an essay with multisyllabic synonyms for "dunce!". Oh, to be able to use "retard" as a pejorative, especially if it is accurate.
The only way I'd blame strict moderation for the anti-pro sentiment of the userbase is that we can't call idiots f***** idiots and have to use long flowery words.
Sometimes I just want to call the stupid for what they are without having to make an essay with multisyllabic synonyms for "dunce!". Oh, to be able to use "retard" as a pejorative, especially if it is accurate.
While you may want to use terms reserved for describing mental disability to describe the immature, do you then allow them to use terms reserved for sexual orientation? What about racial slurs?
There has to be a line somewhere.
Personally I don't know pro mtg players to be the kind that would call someone an idiot for posting a bad idea. I find that behavior typical of the endless PTQ grinder type who rule thier FNM but don't want to change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
The only way I'd blame strict moderation for the anti-pro sentiment of the userbase is that we can't call idiots f***** idiots and have to use long flowery words.
Sometimes I just want to call the stupid for what they are without having to make an essay with multisyllabic synonyms for "dunce!". Oh, to be able to use "retard" as a pejorative, especially if it is accurate.
So this place would be fixed if we could all start calling each other names when we're angry? Is that why the pros stay away, because they want the discussions to include more insults? Call me skeptical.
How is it a bad thing to encourage/require people to express disagreements with more substance than just slinging some personal attacks? I would think that encouraging actual discussions when people disagree would be working toward improving the quality of the site's content. When someone thinks another user's suggested deck idea is bad, is it better that they A) take the time to explain why they think it's bad, or B) call the other user a "****ing idiot"?
I seriously never got the impression, when hearing people disliking MTGS, that it had anything to do with the mods being too strict (perhaps with the exception of banning Pitimp and MNM from MTGS). More that it had to do with useless discussions going in endless loops, something that would probably be lessened with EVEN stricter moderation (I'm not advocating for this) but that can never be fixed for a forum that has open subscriptions and such a huge userbase (with new people pouring in every day).
Well, to be fair on my part, I didn't really say it was the sole reason.
Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on it, but hey, former moderator, see the world through moderation's eyes. It happens
The problem, and I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, is that you are viewing warnings as a punishment when they are supposed to be corrective reminders.
I had a double post in modern this morning from a user with 4 posts. Lets look at the options.
1) Let him double post because he had a huge wall of text to begin with. If I do this I have to let the user base know that its ok to double post all the time and then we have to make a judgment call over what is spammy double posting and what isnt.
2) Merge his post, red text, and send him a PM. That works, although other mods have no idea that I did such, nor do we have any idea how many times he's been warned informally. Of course for something like a double post that isn't a big deal, but what if he's flaming someone?
3) Give him a formal warning like the ones you got. Now we have a record and he has a message. The downside is that he might see this as punative.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what I am hearing you say is less moderation, but control the signal/noise. How do you propose to do both?
I'm thinking about other large forums that I've been a part of like the WoW community, and other than really bad trolls people just ignore people with stupid ideas. I can't see the population of that community being much more mature age wise than this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I am not thinking it is hard to make it so that other moderators can see if something like a double post has been dealt with. Instead of issuing a public warning which is lame just write that you merged thepost and leave it be. dont call it a warning just message the user and ask they not double post. this certainly doesnt sound like its hard.
It may not sound like it's hard, but keeping track of recording informal warnings like that for the over 92,000 members of the forums is, quite simply, a ridiculous task. We need to have a record of exactly how many warnings or infractions each user has, as well as where and when each one occurred. The current system records all that information automatically and makes it easy for a moderator to see each user's history whenever needed. A more informal system would require meticulous bookkeeping by the staff, which is difficult and time-consuming as well as far more prone to error/manipulation, and it would make it far more difficult for a moderator to do their job well (if they have to look up a user's warning/infraction history in some massive directory rather than simply going to that user's profile to see it).
I am not thinking it is hard to make it so that other moderators can see if something like a double post has been dealt with. Instead of issuing a public warning which is lame just write that you merged thepost and leave it be. dont call it a warning just message the user and ask they not double post. this certainly doesnt sound like its hard. also the definition of double post here is largley different from most other forums. on this site you can be warned for double post when you make two posts that are different.
To put it simply, a warning is just that .... a warning. Its simply a gentle reminder of the rules, and gives the staff a reasonable (your suggestion on a website of this size is not reasonable at all) way to keep track of these warnings to assure that people are actually heeding the warnings and actually care about following the rules in the forums. People do make mistakes, which is why the warning system before one gets infractions exist. Ive gotten several warnings and one or two infractions over the years of my being here, and it never bothered me. I made note of where I screwed up, apologized to the moderators for my mistake, and thanked them for letting me know so I could be more careful in the future. I post on here all the time, in a variety of parts of this forum, and have no trouble following the rules, posting freely, and enjoying myself while contributing.
3) Give him a formal warning like the ones you got. Now we have a record and he has a message. The downside is that he might see this as punative.
In principle, this is great (and I agree the concept is pretty good, actually). But in reality, it's more or less that the staff here recognizes warnings as corrective reminders, not the people on the receiving end. Not everyone who joins beelines to the rules; but not all of these people are bad/idiots/troublemakers.
And what I'm saying is not to lower the amount of moderation. I'm saying to increase the amount of interaction, and reduce the amount of automation. I hope I'm making my point clear. I'll shoot you a PM to clarify.
The red text is probably what puts most people off.
No matter how many times I would explain 'a warning is just a reminder' to people, it didn't make them feel any better.
The past few posts also made me realize that rules against double posting -aside from posts made to spam and bump threads- don't make any sense. YES people can edit posts, and should be encouraged to, but if someone doesn't, it isn't the end of the world.
A moderator can merge a post VERY easily.
Double posts do not inhibit the community's ability to communicate with each other and interact. Moderating them does more harm than good.
I tried to push back and change things when I was admin, but I faced too much resistance to get things overturned.
Things like unbanning people like Kingcobweb, who is now known much better by his real name, Jesse Mason. He now writes legitimate articles and has just started a podcast.
Yes, posting here is a privilege, not a right, but some things are better for the community than just 'RULZ R RULZ'.
Every major decision this site faces should have this question asked of it "Is this healthy for the community of MTGS? What positive or negative effects can it have?"
There has been a large amount of staff turnover since Lesurgo (Gavin) and I left for other opportunities. Some of this was due to poor choices regarding staff decisions, and some was due to staff getting burnt out with the forum, which kind of suggests that something is not working right.
I was happy being on staff for MTGnews/MTGsalvation for almost 10 years.
Then I started to lose interest and started to get visibly frustrated with all the noise in the forums. (Somehow this translated to me getting best moderator my last year here?)
Whatever changes are made, the best ones would be ones that best help to up the average intelligence in any thread.
People will always post rulings questions in the rumor mill, because they can't read past the first two letters of a word.
People will always repost the same old information in the rumor mill, because they never used alt+f or a search function in their life.
Some things can't be changed, and change won't come about easily, but it is certainly worth it for everyone that posts here.
I have no stake in weather this site crumbles in on itself or not. I'm sure it can survive through hits gained from the thousands upon thousands who (out of habit?) come in to read the official spoilers from WoTC's site that are reposted every night at midnight. Yes, I am among those people, because for whatever reason, MTGS is the place people post preview cards from X obscure blog, and I need to update my spoiler.
/r Magictcg posts rumors too, and when more people get around to noticing, I'm sure that will be a legitimate competition for MTGS. Why? Because ignorant and unintelligent comments/threads can be voted down and hidden from view.
Twitter has a legitimate and thriving magic community as well. It isn't so much a replacement for a message board, but it is a community and helps frame discussions.
Facebook groups are also helpful, as the veil of anonymity is no longer protecting those that post horrible things. (Dr. Jeebus is the most anonymous magic windbag on the internet...when you trade with him he has you address it to Dr. Jeebus) Facebook also allows for individual discussion of cards, like in the visual spoiler I am updating.
The things that the staff seems to focus most on are non-issues. Trying to shut down the gutter ever since it was created? The community doesn't care. Changing minor rules or adding them? The community won't even notice.
Make a noticeable change.
The staff is here to SERVE and NURTURE the community.
Remember that.
You are moderating to help grow the community. Make sure that your moderation decisions reflect positive changes for the community.
TL;DR: MTGS needs to change in a big way or another website will gladly step up and take their place as the 'de facto place where people post official spoilers because there are no unofficial spoilers anymore'.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
So this place would be fixed if we could all start calling each other names when we're angry? Is that why the pros stay away, because they want the discussions to include more insults? Call me skeptical.
Let bad players with bad opinions be called such rather than holding their hands and assuring them that their opinions are valued contributions to the discussion. Letting idiots be called out as idiots won't solve the matter, but it is a step in the right direction.
You know very well that that was what I meant. This can be clearly be gleaned if you look at the thread title "concessions to all type of players", as well as my first post in Azrael's thread -- there is a clear sentiment of contempt for professional behavior in this site, and it is _encouraged_, partly because bad opinions fester.
How is it a bad thing to encourage/require people to express disagreements with more substance than just slinging some personal attacks?
Because as it stands, the burden of proof is on the good player to prove that he is right, not the bad player with the bad opinion. If the burden of proof was on the bad player then they wouldn't be posting drivel in the first place.
I would think that encouraging actual discussions when people disagree would be working toward improving the quality of the site's content.
Except actual discussions are not happening. If they were, we wouldn't be having this thread. Bad players can get away with inane posts, but you're requiring good players to explain, with no guarantee that the bad poster will even change his idea. By personal experience, there are times where no amount of explaining will help.
When someone thinks another user's suggested deck idea is bad, is it better that they A) take the time to explain why they think it's bad, or B) call the other user a "****ing idiot"?
Why should it be either/or when it can be both? If A fails, which it often does, then B is obviously the better choice (or at least cathartic). But B isn't allowed, even if A fails.
It doesn't have to be a free for all. But, at the very least, if a poster took time to explain he shouldn't be heavily modded if he loses his temper. Like I said,
Sometimes I just want to call the stupid for what they are without having to make an essay with multisyllabic synonyms for "dunce!".
Not _all_ the time.
Finally, keep in mind that my post was in response to the misclick's post, "blaming strstict moderation". I even appended my response "The only way I'd blame strict moderats", not "strict moderation is the source of all evul! lol1" IF I were to blame strict moderation, then this is how I'm going to go about it, not that strict moderation is the _cause_ of the problem. If you read my initial post in Azrael's thread, I'm suggesting STRICTER moderation, or as a poster there put it, "nazi" moderation similar to that of TMD and The Source, rather than looser.
to sum up Mondu's post, this forum should be more like SomethingAwful. that's not a joke.
SA tunes out ****ty, white-noise posting. I've seen way too many threads on here turn into pure ****post palaces because the idiots couldn't be told to get out. if someone makes a stupid post with a stupid opinion and generally acts stupid, others shouldn't get punished for telling them they're an idiot. instead, the idiot should be called out on it (especially in humorous ways) and get booed out of the building, so to speak.
Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
to sum up Mondu's post, this forum should be more like SomethingAwful. that's not a joke.
SA tunes out ****ty, white-noise posting. I've seen way too many threads on here turn into pure ****post palaces because the idiots couldn't be told to get out. if someone makes a stupid post with a stupid opinion and generally acts stupid, others shouldn't get punished for telling them they're an idiot. instead, the idiot should be called out on it (especially in humorous ways) and get booed out of the building, so to speak.
I don't go to somethingawful, so I wouldn't know. While the description above sounds nice, I can't agree to it without finding out first hand what SA is like.
In any case, I suggested stricter moderation in the other thread, not looser.
But... the moderation can't be the problem. Most websites known for their competitive advice consist mainly of articles, and require very little moderation to their commentary; any commentary is either worthless or a question, and very few people feel the need to post the worthless variety (and are ignored regardless). This makes it very easy to point the finger at the moderation, because it is one of the most obvious things about a forum-based website rather than an article-based website, but it ignores the bigger issue of what people want when looking for Magic-related advice: would you rather read 10+ pages of commentary or a 1 page article?
Spoilering this because I get a little freeform:
If I go and read an article from a pro, or watch a youtube video from a pro, I try to take in what they say, but because I'm not a pro I will inherently miss things. When LSV says "well Island is just the correct choice for this pick, it'll confuse my opponent", I might question that choice but am in no position to do anything other than note it; I could post a question but that seems inconsequential, knowing that it probably won't get answered. I simply must take the choice at his word, and am inclined to do just that because, hey, he's pro and I'm not. I am forced to take a "humble listening" attitude, which hopefully helps me make deductive leaps in reasoning, ultimately making me a better Magic player, my main goal for this excersize.
If I come here, though, I am not only allowed to but encouraged to ask questions. If I don't like the "Island pick" I can and probably will voice my concern, and from everything I've seen will receive an involved answer; if I don't, I can simply state that I didn't get it and receive a more detailed answer again. I can skip trying to deduce the reasoning behind the questionable tactic and get a forthright answer. The process becomes much simpler; what might have taken me days to figure out is answered for me in minutes or at most hours, and I can accelerate my learning in this fashion and quickly accomplish my goal of becoming better at Magic. It is, however, harshly ruled by the laws of diminishing returns; my question concerning any given situation will only be applicable in that given situation unless I also increase my ability to deductively apply it to similar scenarios.
Thus, in order to best make use of my time and feel the most fulfilled for my efforts [when hoping to get better at Magic] (thereby increasing the amount of time I visit the website), I need both types of environments; I need to be forced to sit patiently and take in information, AND I need to be able to make a query when the situation becomes too large for me to puzzle out deductively. The problem is, MTGSally is not the place where I can accomplish both.. I can rely on it to answer questions reliably enough, but too many factors interfere with a "humble listening" attitude, the most telling of which is that I can't simply rely on the advice of any given poster unless they can prove to me that their advice is sound, which is rare.
The more I try to wrap my head around this conundrum, the more I think what we really need is simply to instigate that "Like This Post" system that was suggested a while back, so that I can simply ignore the crap and go straight to the posts that have a lot of likes. Barring that, encouraging posters to quote their favorite posts would also increase the likelihood that I will see quality posts, even if it is in the form of just +1'ing them.
And, except for the fact that you can't currently +1 a post, moderation doesn't factor into this at all.
One thing I feel is worth pointing out - grinders don't inherently bring more to the discussion than casual players.
Go look at the Rumor Mill threads. Most posts from your typical T2 competitive player types amount to "This is garbage that will never be played in any format" or the dumber variety, "WHy can't Wizards just push the power level of cards so they all have a shot at seeing competitive play?"
This sort of statement is unhelpful, and is one reason New Card Discussion is such a waste of time as a forum. Players are overwhelmingly bad at card evaluation. Seriously. You are not so smart, and if you immediately dismiss a card, there is a significant chance you're going to be proven wrong, and a nonzero chance you're going to look foolish in hindsight.
Go read Luis Scott-Vargas' set review of Innistrad. Here's one of the most dominating players active today going by the spoiled cards one by one and thoughtfully examining them. Sure, he gets the broad strokes right, he just moves over the Limited-only commons in the set... but he also puts some real clunkers in there, like basically ignoring Doomed Traveller, which has become one of the premier white one-drops, or completely failing to spot Delver of Secrets' incredible success. How well do you think people who aren't Luis-Scott Vargas fare?
Those sorts of evaluations are hard to make even for very good players making a real effort; your average self-proclaimed "grinder" with a couple of PTQ showings under his belt is just as likely to add to new card discussion as a casual player. The difference isn't what kind of Magic you play or your Planeswalker Points total; it's how thoughtful and articulate you are. The OP is certainly guilty of herd-mentality posts (Of the "Why not run Dismember" variety) that add basically nothing to the discussion, yet he begrudges people for less than edifying posts of the "These are my emotions right now!!!!" variety.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
/r Magictcg posts rumors too, and when more people get around to noticing, I'm sure that will be a legitimate competition for MTGS. Why? Because ignorant and unintelligent comments/threads can be voted down and hidden from view.
In the past I have opposed any kind of voting system on threads.
I'm starting to wonder if adding such a system might be at least part of the solution.
Of course, that would require further modification/upgrading of the forum software, which Hannes still won't do.
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. :|
In the past I have opposed any kind of voting system on threads.
I'm starting to wonder if adding such a system might be at least part of the solution.
Of course, that would require further modification/upgrading of the forum software, which Hannes still won't do.
At the very least, put in a "like" system that Facebook has (and other forums that use it too). I bugged the staff about this a few months ago and the response was basically "Hannes is the one that would be able to do that, but he just hasn't done it yet." Why we're still using woefully outdated vBulletin software baffles me. Hannes should have upgraded a while ago, but he's done next to nothing.
to sum up Mondu's post, this forum should be more like SomethingAwful. that's not a joke.
SA tunes out ****ty, white-noise posting. I've seen way too many threads on here turn into pure ****post palaces because the idiots couldn't be told to get out. if someone makes a stupid post with a stupid opinion and generally acts stupid, others shouldn't get punished for telling them they're an idiot. instead, the idiot should be called out on it (especially in humorous ways) and get booed out of the building, so to speak.
A community that controls quality by bullying unwanted contributors and treating them like **** is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I would want in a discussion forum.
Who decides which opinions are the stupid ones, I wonder? Is it simply self-evident, an objectively quantifiable trait? Who picks which voices get bullied out? Is there an outlined agenda of what does and does not count as an acceptable opinion or line of thought?
The current state of these forums is extremely far from perfect. But I can at least have a bit of pride in the fact that you're not going to be getting kicked out for what your opinion is, here. If you're going to be forced to leave, it's because of how you've acted.
You disagree with someone? Tell them reasonably. If they're not going to engage in reasonable conversation about the issue, ignore them. If they're flaming, spamming, etc. report the post and move on without addressing them any more. If you find yourself absolutely unable to resist the urge to attack them, add them to your ignore list. Remove the temptation. "It's cathartic" is a horrible excuse. It's not reasonable to tolerate you ripping into someone because it makes you feel better. How is that any better than someone ranting and raving about how net-deckers are the scum of the earth? What is the difference? If we don't want that sort of behavior to be tolerated (and we don't) then why should other people get a pass on behavior that is just as hateful, crass, and unreasonable?
Having an anti-pro, anti-netdeck, anti-grinder, anti-whatever sentiment isn't a problem. Expressing those sentiments through disruptive, hateful, and belligerent conduct is a problem. That's true of every opinion and perspective. I don't care what you think or how you feel about something, you should be able to share it here, as long as you're doing it in a constructive and reasonable way. It's not the substance of the message, it's the delivery. That is what needs to be curbed.
In the past I have opposed any kind of voting system on threads.
I'm starting to wonder if adding such a system might be at least part of the solution.
Of course, that would require further modification/upgrading of the forum software, which Hannes still won't do.
I would not have a "thumbs down" thing, only a "thumbs up" like Surging said. In forums I've been on in the past with such a system, often times posts can get gang thumbs-downed illegitimately, just because people don't like the idea/they are unfamiliar with it, ect.
It's not the substance of the message, it's the delivery. That is what needs to be curbed.
With all due respect, what? You're saying that a polite and well-delivered message is worthwhile, even if it provides no substantial benefit to the reader? Essentially, you don't mind if you waste your time reading a post as long as it's not flame-y, and that we all should take the same attitude? I simply don't buy that.
With all due respect, what? You're saying that a polite and well-delivered message is worthwhile, even if it provides no substantial benefit to the reader? Essentially, you don't mind if you waste your time reading a post as long as it's not flame-y, and that we all should take the same attitude? I simply don't buy that.
I mean I don't care whether the opinion is one I agree or disagree with, as long as it's being presented respectfully. Using the word "substance" wasn't all that clear, sorry. I suppose adding "well-thought-out" to the list of desirable qualities accounts for the reasonable-but-insubstantial category.
I mean I don't care whether the opinion is one I agree or disagree with, as long as it's being presented respectfully. Using the word "substance" wasn't all that clear, sorry. I suppose adding "well-thought-out" to the list of desirable qualities accounts for the reasonable-but-insubstantial category.
Thank you for the clarification. It is a noble goal.
To put it bluntly, though, lots of pro-level people tend to ignore social niceties, in all kinds of activities (a lot of professional sports stars and Bobby Fischer spring to mind). They simply aren't adept at being respectful (I will not attempt to theorize why), but have much to teach in the way of their chosen profession. I know I've read/watched many pro-level Magic players and often thought about how, um, abrasive they can be. Is it worthwhile to cater to them? In essence, which is more important, respect or substance?
Why not attract the pro-level people who are also respectful? Is attracting an elite clientele important enough to grant exceptions from treating other people with respect? Being skilled doesn't excuse you from behaving in a decent manner. Adopting that sort of stance only fosters the sort of privileged, elitist attitude that puts a bad image of pros in so many people's minds.
Why not attract the pro-level people who are also respectful?
Because those people are far more rare than your average brilliant-jerk combo.
Is attracting an elite clientele important enough to grant exceptions from treating other people with respect?
I have no idea. Personally, I like the low-key atmosphere, but then again, I'm no pro.
Being skilled doesn't excuse you from behaving in a decent manner. Adopting that sort of stance only fosters the sort of privileged, elitist attitude that puts a bad image of pros in so many people's minds.
And I agree, more than you could know. But it also strikes me that this whole subject is about "pro" derision of this site, and feel that this is an important point to make; by making the website more family-friendly, you invariably dismiss those who flourish in a more, um, 'robust' atmosphere... and many of the pros some wish would post here don't because of it.
A lot of the top-level pros, prehaps most of them, are nice, socially adept people. And again, just because someone has competed at a professional or semi-professional level doesn't mean they have much to contribute to a conversation, and if they're constitutionally incapable of being respectful of other users, they're not very likely to be contributing anyway.
You don't want to fill this site with "pro" players hoping that their skill will rub off on it; you want to fill it with users who contribute good content.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On average, Magic players are worse at new card evaluation than almost every other skill, except perhaps sideboarding.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair enough, but it did kind of blindside me. You seemed to be agreeing with Urzassedatives' earlier point that the website is falling behind on its use of technological advances and this brave new internet culture, and then followed up by saying that the moderation was too strict, which I took to be a non sequitar. My apologies, although in my defense that was quite a bit to take in.
The thing is, I don't really think "moderation" can be used as a leverage tool for this topic. We can't compare this site's moderation to, say, SCG's, because most of the people going to StarCity just read the articles, and there's very little moderation that can be done; you can't call out someone's bad choices in their article if they just #1'd a PT with their deck, after all.
The only way I'd blame strict moderation for the anti-pro sentiment of the userbase is that we can't call idiots f***** idiots and have to use long flowery words.
Sometimes I just want to call the stupid for what they are without having to make an essay with multisyllabic synonyms for "dunce!". Oh, to be able to use "retard" as a pejorative, especially if it is accurate.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
While you may want to use terms reserved for describing mental disability to describe the immature, do you then allow them to use terms reserved for sexual orientation? What about racial slurs?
There has to be a line somewhere.
Personally I don't know pro mtg players to be the kind that would call someone an idiot for posting a bad idea. I find that behavior typical of the endless PTQ grinder type who rule thier FNM but don't want to change.
So this place would be fixed if we could all start calling each other names when we're angry? Is that why the pros stay away, because they want the discussions to include more insults? Call me skeptical.
How is it a bad thing to encourage/require people to express disagreements with more substance than just slinging some personal attacks? I would think that encouraging actual discussions when people disagree would be working toward improving the quality of the site's content. When someone thinks another user's suggested deck idea is bad, is it better that they A) take the time to explain why they think it's bad, or B) call the other user a "****ing idiot"?
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
The problem, and I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, is that you are viewing warnings as a punishment when they are supposed to be corrective reminders.
I had a double post in modern this morning from a user with 4 posts. Lets look at the options.
1) Let him double post because he had a huge wall of text to begin with. If I do this I have to let the user base know that its ok to double post all the time and then we have to make a judgment call over what is spammy double posting and what isnt.
2) Merge his post, red text, and send him a PM. That works, although other mods have no idea that I did such, nor do we have any idea how many times he's been warned informally. Of course for something like a double post that isn't a big deal, but what if he's flaming someone?
3) Give him a formal warning like the ones you got. Now we have a record and he has a message. The downside is that he might see this as punative.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what I am hearing you say is less moderation, but control the signal/noise. How do you propose to do both?
I'm thinking about other large forums that I've been a part of like the WoW community, and other than really bad trolls people just ignore people with stupid ideas. I can't see the population of that community being much more mature age wise than this.
It may not sound like it's hard, but keeping track of recording informal warnings like that for the over 92,000 members of the forums is, quite simply, a ridiculous task. We need to have a record of exactly how many warnings or infractions each user has, as well as where and when each one occurred. The current system records all that information automatically and makes it easy for a moderator to see each user's history whenever needed. A more informal system would require meticulous bookkeeping by the staff, which is difficult and time-consuming as well as far more prone to error/manipulation, and it would make it far more difficult for a moderator to do their job well (if they have to look up a user's warning/infraction history in some massive directory rather than simply going to that user's profile to see it).
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
To put it simply, a warning is just that .... a warning. Its simply a gentle reminder of the rules, and gives the staff a reasonable (your suggestion on a website of this size is not reasonable at all) way to keep track of these warnings to assure that people are actually heeding the warnings and actually care about following the rules in the forums. People do make mistakes, which is why the warning system before one gets infractions exist. Ive gotten several warnings and one or two infractions over the years of my being here, and it never bothered me. I made note of where I screwed up, apologized to the moderators for my mistake, and thanked them for letting me know so I could be more careful in the future. I post on here all the time, in a variety of parts of this forum, and have no trouble following the rules, posting freely, and enjoying myself while contributing.
In principle, this is great (and I agree the concept is pretty good, actually). But in reality, it's more or less that the staff here recognizes warnings as corrective reminders, not the people on the receiving end. Not everyone who joins beelines to the rules; but not all of these people are bad/idiots/troublemakers.
And what I'm saying is not to lower the amount of moderation. I'm saying to increase the amount of interaction, and reduce the amount of automation. I hope I'm making my point clear. I'll shoot you a PM to clarify.
No matter how many times I would explain 'a warning is just a reminder' to people, it didn't make them feel any better.
The past few posts also made me realize that rules against double posting -aside from posts made to spam and bump threads- don't make any sense. YES people can edit posts, and should be encouraged to, but if someone doesn't, it isn't the end of the world.
A moderator can merge a post VERY easily.
Double posts do not inhibit the community's ability to communicate with each other and interact. Moderating them does more harm than good.
I tried to push back and change things when I was admin, but I faced too much resistance to get things overturned.
Things like unbanning people like Kingcobweb, who is now known much better by his real name, Jesse Mason. He now writes legitimate articles and has just started a podcast.
Yes, posting here is a privilege, not a right, but some things are better for the community than just 'RULZ R RULZ'.
Every major decision this site faces should have this question asked of it "Is this healthy for the community of MTGS? What positive or negative effects can it have?"
There has been a large amount of staff turnover since Lesurgo (Gavin) and I left for other opportunities. Some of this was due to poor choices regarding staff decisions, and some was due to staff getting burnt out with the forum, which kind of suggests that something is not working right.
I was happy being on staff for MTGnews/MTGsalvation for almost 10 years.
Then I started to lose interest and started to get visibly frustrated with all the noise in the forums. (Somehow this translated to me getting best moderator my last year here?)
Whatever changes are made, the best ones would be ones that best help to up the average intelligence in any thread.
People will always post rulings questions in the rumor mill, because they can't read past the first two letters of a word.
People will always repost the same old information in the rumor mill, because they never used alt+f or a search function in their life.
Some things can't be changed, and change won't come about easily, but it is certainly worth it for everyone that posts here.
I have no stake in weather this site crumbles in on itself or not. I'm sure it can survive through hits gained from the thousands upon thousands who (out of habit?) come in to read the official spoilers from WoTC's site that are reposted every night at midnight. Yes, I am among those people, because for whatever reason, MTGS is the place people post preview cards from X obscure blog, and I need to update my spoiler.
/r Magictcg posts rumors too, and when more people get around to noticing, I'm sure that will be a legitimate competition for MTGS. Why? Because ignorant and unintelligent comments/threads can be voted down and hidden from view.
Twitter has a legitimate and thriving magic community as well. It isn't so much a replacement for a message board, but it is a community and helps frame discussions.
Facebook groups are also helpful, as the veil of anonymity is no longer protecting those that post horrible things. (Dr. Jeebus is the most anonymous magic windbag on the internet...when you trade with him he has you address it to Dr. Jeebus) Facebook also allows for individual discussion of cards, like in the visual spoiler I am updating.
The things that the staff seems to focus most on are non-issues. Trying to shut down the gutter ever since it was created? The community doesn't care. Changing minor rules or adding them? The community won't even notice.
Make a noticeable change.
The staff is here to SERVE and NURTURE the community.
Remember that.
You are moderating to help grow the community. Make sure that your moderation decisions reflect positive changes for the community.
TL;DR: MTGS needs to change in a big way or another website will gladly step up and take their place as the 'de facto place where people post official spoilers because there are no unofficial spoilers anymore'.
Twitter
Let bad players with bad opinions be called such rather than holding their hands and assuring them that their opinions are valued contributions to the discussion. Letting idiots be called out as idiots won't solve the matter, but it is a step in the right direction.
You know very well that that was what I meant. This can be clearly be gleaned if you look at the thread title "concessions to all type of players", as well as my first post in Azrael's thread -- there is a clear sentiment of contempt for professional behavior in this site, and it is _encouraged_, partly because bad opinions fester.
Because as it stands, the burden of proof is on the good player to prove that he is right, not the bad player with the bad opinion. If the burden of proof was on the bad player then they wouldn't be posting drivel in the first place.
Except actual discussions are not happening. If they were, we wouldn't be having this thread. Bad players can get away with inane posts, but you're requiring good players to explain, with no guarantee that the bad poster will even change his idea. By personal experience, there are times where no amount of explaining will help.
Why should it be either/or when it can be both? If A fails, which it often does, then B is obviously the better choice (or at least cathartic). But B isn't allowed, even if A fails.
It doesn't have to be a free for all. But, at the very least, if a poster took time to explain he shouldn't be heavily modded if he loses his temper. Like I said,
Not _all_ the time.
Finally, keep in mind that my post was in response to the misclick's post, "blaming strstict moderation". I even appended my response "The only way I'd blame strict moderats", not "strict moderation is the source of all evul! lol1" IF I were to blame strict moderation, then this is how I'm going to go about it, not that strict moderation is the _cause_ of the problem. If you read my initial post in Azrael's thread, I'm suggesting STRICTER moderation, or as a poster there put it, "nazi" moderation similar to that of TMD and The Source, rather than looser.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
SA tunes out ****ty, white-noise posting. I've seen way too many threads on here turn into pure ****post palaces because the idiots couldn't be told to get out. if someone makes a stupid post with a stupid opinion and generally acts stupid, others shouldn't get punished for telling them they're an idiot. instead, the idiot should be called out on it (especially in humorous ways) and get booed out of the building, so to speak.
I don't go to somethingawful, so I wouldn't know. While the description above sounds nice, I can't agree to it without finding out first hand what SA is like.
In any case, I suggested stricter moderation in the other thread, not looser.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Spoilering this because I get a little freeform:
If I come here, though, I am not only allowed to but encouraged to ask questions. If I don't like the "Island pick" I can and probably will voice my concern, and from everything I've seen will receive an involved answer; if I don't, I can simply state that I didn't get it and receive a more detailed answer again. I can skip trying to deduce the reasoning behind the questionable tactic and get a forthright answer. The process becomes much simpler; what might have taken me days to figure out is answered for me in minutes or at most hours, and I can accelerate my learning in this fashion and quickly accomplish my goal of becoming better at Magic. It is, however, harshly ruled by the laws of diminishing returns; my question concerning any given situation will only be applicable in that given situation unless I also increase my ability to deductively apply it to similar scenarios.
Thus, in order to best make use of my time and feel the most fulfilled for my efforts [when hoping to get better at Magic] (thereby increasing the amount of time I visit the website), I need both types of environments; I need to be forced to sit patiently and take in information, AND I need to be able to make a query when the situation becomes too large for me to puzzle out deductively. The problem is, MTGSally is not the place where I can accomplish both.. I can rely on it to answer questions reliably enough, but too many factors interfere with a "humble listening" attitude, the most telling of which is that I can't simply rely on the advice of any given poster unless they can prove to me that their advice is sound, which is rare.
The more I try to wrap my head around this conundrum, the more I think what we really need is simply to instigate that "Like This Post" system that was suggested a while back, so that I can simply ignore the crap and go straight to the posts that have a lot of likes. Barring that, encouraging posters to quote their favorite posts would also increase the likelihood that I will see quality posts, even if it is in the form of just +1'ing them.
And, except for the fact that you can't currently +1 a post, moderation doesn't factor into this at all.
Go look at the Rumor Mill threads. Most posts from your typical T2 competitive player types amount to "This is garbage that will never be played in any format" or the dumber variety, "WHy can't Wizards just push the power level of cards so they all have a shot at seeing competitive play?"
This sort of statement is unhelpful, and is one reason New Card Discussion is such a waste of time as a forum. Players are overwhelmingly bad at card evaluation. Seriously. You are not so smart, and if you immediately dismiss a card, there is a significant chance you're going to be proven wrong, and a nonzero chance you're going to look foolish in hindsight.
Go read Luis Scott-Vargas' set review of Innistrad. Here's one of the most dominating players active today going by the spoiled cards one by one and thoughtfully examining them. Sure, he gets the broad strokes right, he just moves over the Limited-only commons in the set... but he also puts some real clunkers in there, like basically ignoring Doomed Traveller, which has become one of the premier white one-drops, or completely failing to spot Delver of Secrets' incredible success. How well do you think people who aren't Luis-Scott Vargas fare?
Those sorts of evaluations are hard to make even for very good players making a real effort; your average self-proclaimed "grinder" with a couple of PTQ showings under his belt is just as likely to add to new card discussion as a casual player. The difference isn't what kind of Magic you play or your Planeswalker Points total; it's how thoughtful and articulate you are. The OP is certainly guilty of herd-mentality posts (Of the "Why not run Dismember" variety) that add basically nothing to the discussion, yet he begrudges people for less than edifying posts of the "These are my emotions right now!!!!" variety.
In the past I have opposed any kind of voting system on threads.
I'm starting to wonder if adding such a system might be at least part of the solution.
Of course, that would require further modification/upgrading of the forum software, which Hannes still won't do.
At the very least, put in a "like" system that Facebook has (and other forums that use it too). I bugged the staff about this a few months ago and the response was basically "Hannes is the one that would be able to do that, but he just hasn't done it yet." Why we're still using woefully outdated vBulletin software baffles me. Hannes should have upgraded a while ago, but he's done next to nothing.
A community that controls quality by bullying unwanted contributors and treating them like **** is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I would want in a discussion forum.
Who decides which opinions are the stupid ones, I wonder? Is it simply self-evident, an objectively quantifiable trait? Who picks which voices get bullied out? Is there an outlined agenda of what does and does not count as an acceptable opinion or line of thought?
The current state of these forums is extremely far from perfect. But I can at least have a bit of pride in the fact that you're not going to be getting kicked out for what your opinion is, here. If you're going to be forced to leave, it's because of how you've acted.
You disagree with someone? Tell them reasonably. If they're not going to engage in reasonable conversation about the issue, ignore them. If they're flaming, spamming, etc. report the post and move on without addressing them any more. If you find yourself absolutely unable to resist the urge to attack them, add them to your ignore list. Remove the temptation. "It's cathartic" is a horrible excuse. It's not reasonable to tolerate you ripping into someone because it makes you feel better. How is that any better than someone ranting and raving about how net-deckers are the scum of the earth? What is the difference? If we don't want that sort of behavior to be tolerated (and we don't) then why should other people get a pass on behavior that is just as hateful, crass, and unreasonable?
Having an anti-pro, anti-netdeck, anti-grinder, anti-whatever sentiment isn't a problem. Expressing those sentiments through disruptive, hateful, and belligerent conduct is a problem. That's true of every opinion and perspective. I don't care what you think or how you feel about something, you should be able to share it here, as long as you're doing it in a constructive and reasonable way. It's not the substance of the message, it's the delivery. That is what needs to be curbed.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
I would not have a "thumbs down" thing, only a "thumbs up" like Surging said. In forums I've been on in the past with such a system, often times posts can get gang thumbs-downed illegitimately, just because people don't like the idea/they are unfamiliar with it, ect.
With all due respect, what? You're saying that a polite and well-delivered message is worthwhile, even if it provides no substantial benefit to the reader? Essentially, you don't mind if you waste your time reading a post as long as it's not flame-y, and that we all should take the same attitude? I simply don't buy that.
I mean I don't care whether the opinion is one I agree or disagree with, as long as it's being presented respectfully. Using the word "substance" wasn't all that clear, sorry. I suppose adding "well-thought-out" to the list of desirable qualities accounts for the reasonable-but-insubstantial category.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Thank you for the clarification. It is a noble goal.
To put it bluntly, though, lots of pro-level people tend to ignore social niceties, in all kinds of activities (a lot of professional sports stars and Bobby Fischer spring to mind). They simply aren't adept at being respectful (I will not attempt to theorize why), but have much to teach in the way of their chosen profession. I know I've read/watched many pro-level Magic players and often thought about how, um, abrasive they can be. Is it worthwhile to cater to them? In essence, which is more important, respect or substance?
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Because those people are far more rare than your average brilliant-jerk combo.
I have no idea. Personally, I like the low-key atmosphere, but then again, I'm no pro.
And I agree, more than you could know. But it also strikes me that this whole subject is about "pro" derision of this site, and feel that this is an important point to make; by making the website more family-friendly, you invariably dismiss those who flourish in a more, um, 'robust' atmosphere... and many of the pros some wish would post here don't because of it.
You don't want to fill this site with "pro" players hoping that their skill will rub off on it; you want to fill it with users who contribute good content.