I have not been a member very long but I can see some of your points. After reading Wizards vs. Daron I have realized that we do indeed, need to patch up relations with them.
IDEA: Maybe some of you site devs could get together and make some custom MTGS Card Protectors, Playmats, and Apparel. I would buy it for sure.
For what it's worth, I tend to thank posts whose content mirrors my thoughts at that point of the thread, or ones whose content is so directly in line with my thoughts that the thanked post made any post I'd make superfluous.
Kireek, your argument works more in your favor without the closing "**** you"s, FYI. Cut these guys some slack.
( N_S ), I can only hope that your words match your intentions and your future actions.
This thread's been pretty good so far. A lot of valid points being raised. Is it possible, like with Kireek's case, that there may be an issue with too many cooks, so to speak? Seems like some agreed, some didn't, and nothing was done (regardless of Kireek's inaction vis-a-vis challenging the ruling).
I think this site would benefit from a lot more transparency. We started to have it, but it's gone. I noticed no one's reported on mod staff changes in the thread in CI/Special Occasions in months. I noticed when I went to find out why MandersHex was no longer a mod.
I think that when mods/globals/admins discuss the merits of a ruling, the public should at least be aware of the final result. Think of it like a court - you don't read the deliberations, just the final ruling and the opinions on both sides of the issue. Then, at the least, a public discussion can take place, where the merits of the ruling, and the staff's opinions, can be discussed. This way, the spirit of the rules becomes clearer to both staff and public.
The less transparency around a decision, the more conspiracy theories and such form around that. Lack of information inspires others to fill in the blanks themselves... and likely incorrectly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
I think this site would benefit from a lot more transparency. We started to have it, but it's gone. I noticed no one's reported on mod staff changes in the thread in CI/Special Occasions in months. I noticed when I went to find out why MandersHex was no longer a mod.
One age-old issue for the site: Some moderators are members that are not friendly. Before they were mods, they would go out of their way to be rude in daily (ie not corrective) posts. Why would you tap folks like this to be a mod?
To be sure, an number of the mods are routinely friendly and capable of reining in problem members. But some choices have left me scratching my head.
If you want a welcoming site, you need welcoming moderation. It can be tight moderation, but it needs an underlying friendly attitude.
One age-old issue for the site: Some moderators are members that are not friendly. Before they were mods, they would go out of their way to be rude in daily (ie not corrective) posts. Why would you tap folks like this to be a mod?
To be sure, an number of the mods are routinely friendly and capable of reining in problem members. But some choices have left me scratching my head.
If you want a welcoming site, you need welcoming moderation.
It's impossible to answer a question like this without specifics. There are dozens of moderators that have been hired and promoted over a period of years by nearly a dozen different administrators. If you believe a moderator is not performing his or her duty appropriately, you should contact a senior staff member so that you can explain and provide evidence for your complaint.
One age-old issue for the site: Some moderators are members that are not friendly. Before they were mods, they would go out of their way to be rude in daily (ie not corrective) posts. Why would you tap folks like this to be a mod?
To be sure, an number of the mods are routinely friendly and capable of reining in problem members. But some choices have left me scratching my head.
If you want a welcoming site, you need welcoming moderation.
I think a better question is: Why does the staff choose to pick new moderators via application rather than by request? I think the community as a whole would get better moderators if the community with staff input requested that certain members (who are agreed to be exemplary members) were asked to serve for some period of time, in contrast to the current system of requiring members to apply for moderator positions. The current method just doesn't seem to line up the incentives with the goals.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
I think a better question is: Why does the staff choose to pick new moderators via application rather than by request? I think the community as a whole would get better moderators if the community with staff input requested that certain members (who are agreed to be exemplary members) were asked to serve for some period of time, in contrast to the current system of requiring members to apply for moderator positions. The current method just doesn't seem to line up the incentives with the goals.
Both methods are actually used. The idea of requesting people to be moderators is referred to as "targetted hiring" by the staff, and was implemented shortly after the last round of public applications in December 2011. The system has been successfully used a number of times, but has been sharply criticized as being more likely to lead to "croneyism". The current system of always-open applications was implemented to create a "hybrid" system as a form of checks-and-balances.
How about now? The best parts of this site are those which are not related to the major formats. I've heard that the modern forum here is decent as well, although I can't say that I've worked up a high enough level of caring for modern to actually investigate it. The problem is that when someone thinks of a Magic community site, they're going to think of the two major formats (Standard and Legacy) first, and everything else later down the road. Whether or not focusing on everything else EXCEPT those two formats could actually mean anything is open for discussion. I'm inclined to think that for the site to be truly rejuvenated the way people in this thread are desirous of, the Standard and Legacy forums need to be fixed first and foremost. Everything else is gravy.
If this site just did a mass streamlining and pruning of the boards, and played to their strengths, which were explained in this post for the most part, adding in trading post, it would do quite a bit of good.
Tentposts of this site, IMO, and the only boards I would leave around if I could delete boards.
Rumor Mill (obviously the foundation)
Trading Post
EDH/Cube
Rulings
Mafia (i guess people like this, but it seems entirely out of place and could be made a private board or something)
Standard will never be truly 'fixed'. The people who post on this forum are trying to pull it in 1000 different directions, and every new change to the standard forum causes new issues.
Legacy is even harder to pull off, and even less likely to work out than standard.
Play to the strengths rather than keep on a bunch of things that never worked like they should have.
A lot of things on this forum make me wonder. This type of moderation is one of them. Mostly the staff here is too tunnel visioned to care about any other point of view, it's just black and white for MTG Salvation. Main reason why I quit coming here (that and, this attitude drives other people away who had common interests). I will continue to share this opinion on Twitter or wherever else Salvation is a topic of discussion.
I just think in addition to general moderator attitude here that it's comical what most of the warnings are. You guys say that they are just "cautions" or whatever the terminology was used to defend it the last time, but...
1. It's in big, red, bold letters.
2. It's usually administered without taking into account how long the poster has been here.
3. It's usually for something that can be easily corrected.
The one variable the staff here doesn't take into account is the culture of the discipline system here and how it's applied to users without letting that settle in. Also, not everyone sits on a forum all day, so poor Joe or whoever who joined a forum for the first time is going to have issues navigating. You really think you're attracting members or retaining them by warning them for stupid **** like "image leaching" or a double post when they've been here for a few weeks?
Why don't you try another tactic? How about just code the damn forums to display images only from the approved sites with the IMG tags? Duuurrr. It's what we did on the site that I helped run, and it's worked wonders. Links that go to an outside source have a warning box displayed. Easy programming. Think out of the box before you directly alienate your members. Out.
But honestly, image leeching is no longer something that should be infracted for anyway. Websites can handle the traffic. Exceptions include websites when they just updated with an official spoiler, and WoTCs site with spoiler information in general, but still, not really a big deal.
A true legacy superstar is among us, and one of the louder voices on twitter that expresses displeasure with the site.
If it matters, Joey Pasco and Marshall Sutcliffe also echo similar concerns to what Mark expressed.
First of all, this isn't the place to discuss specific warnings. With that said:
Honestly what does ____________ do for the community?.
Think about that one for a little while.
"Honestly what does infracting 6 posters in a row who are trying to speculate on a rumor mill thread do for the community?"
"Honestly what does closing a rumor mill thread too soon do for the community?"
"Honestly what does allowing spammy posts to run rampant in the rumor mill do for the community?"
We have over 104,000 members. There are nearly 3,000 people browsing right now. There are new members every single day.
If your argument is that we scare people away and discourage new membership, your argument does not mesh with the numbers.
I mean, don't you guys want to have that 'guest' to member ratio go down ever?
I'm sure, at this point in the site's lifespan, most of those people are banned.
Just because people are viewing the site, doesn't mean they are contributing to the site. Only people will accounts can post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I mean, don't you guys want to have that 'guest' to member ratio go down ever?
I'm sure, at this point in the site's lifespan, most of those people are banned.
Just because people are viewing the site, doesn't mean they are contributing to the site. Only people will accounts can post.
My point was that the user provided no evidence that current staff practices are discouraging membership. Nor did you.
Both methods are actually used. The idea of requesting people to be moderators is referred to as "targetted hiring" by the staff, and was implemented shortly after the last round of public applications in December 2011. The system has been successfully used a number of times, but has been sharply criticized as being more likely to lead to "croneyism". The current system of always-open applications was implemented to create a "hybrid" system as a form of checks-and-balances.
That makes sense to some extent, but I'm not sure quite how the current system of applications really corrects the problem of cronyism (I make this statement in the abstract, and am not suggesting that it is or isn't an actual problem.), since it's still staff-made decisions in a private subforum that neither I nor any other non-staff member has access to.
Would you elaborate on how the current system alleviates the allegations of cronyism, corruption, etc.?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
I think what Seds is saying, and I strongly echo, is that MTGS needs to be downscaled, streamlined, and updated. Forums can certainly exist in the Age of Facebook, but you have to have a reason to bring people here in the first place.
What we do well is casual-ish content and rumors. There really aren't that many sites out there for casual Magic players other than GatheringMagic. It would be cool to see Salvation evolve into a chill place for newbies and people who don't take the game so damn seriously.
That makes sense to some extent, but I'm not sure quite how the current system of applications really corrects the problem of cronyism (I make this statement in the abstract, and am not suggesting that it is or isn't an actual problem.), since it's still staff-made decisions in a private subforum that neither I nor any other non-staff member has access to.
Would you elaborate on how the current system alleviates the allegations of cronyism, corruption, etc.?
To the extent that people believe croneyism will occur because new staff members are approved by current staff members, it does nothing. No process short of selection by regular members could.
The criticism was usually that the targeted hiring system meant that only members who were "buddies" with current staff members would be approached for staff positions, and that if such a process were used exclusively for hiring, it would lead to situations where sub-par members were approached simply because they were friends rather than because they were talented. Targeted hiring can lead to a "keys under the lamppost" situation, where you only look at a select group of people and thus artificially limit your choices. By keeping applications open all the time, quality members who aren't friends with any staff members can make themselves known to the staff.
My point was that the user provided no evidence that current staff practices are discouraging membership. Nor did you.
I wasn't arguing that they were.
Quality over quantity is a thing too, I'd rather have 1 new member who can post intelligently and add relevant things to the site than 50 people posting youtube-comment level stuff, riding the line between 'spam' and acceptable posts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Guys, thanks for the tips. But this is part of my point. If this information is being recorded in that spot now...
A) Why isn't that more well-known? ... and
B) Why is there still a sticky in Special Occasions entitled, "New Moderators and Staff Shifting" (or close to it), that hasn't been updated in months? Or, more appropriately, why was that thread not linked to the new location and that thread unstickied?
Maybe seds is right when he says we could maybe do some house cleaning to reorganize... But from the ground up, no sacred cows, like the site was being fully redesigned. Some parts of this forum really are a beast to get through...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
It's impossible to answer a question like this without specifics. There are dozens of moderators that have been hired and promoted over a period of years by nearly a dozen different administrators. If you believe a moderator is not performing his or her duty appropriately, you should contact a senior staff member so that you can explain and provide evidence for your complaint.
"Appropriate" doesn't always mean "friendly".
I don't get warnings, and I don't have a specific complaint that concerns me. I won't name names, but sometimes there's a distinct WTH when I read a congratulations thread.
@ Drifting Skies: I agree. "Hey, this person is cool and posts a lot" is a good qualification. "This person likes to antagonize folks and posts a lot" is not so great.
Guys, thanks for the tips. But this is part of my point. If this information is being recorded in that spot now...
A) Why isn't that more well-known? ... and
B) Why is there still a sticky in Special Occasions entitled, "New Moderators and Staff Shifting" (or close to it), that hasn't been updated in months? Or, more appropriately, why was that thread not linked to the new location and that thread unstickied?
Maybe seds is right when he says we could maybe do some house cleaning to reorganize... But from the ground up, no sacred cows, like the site was being fully redesigned. Some parts of this forum really are a beast to get through...
1. You've provided no evidence that the information is not well known. In fact, after you posted a misunderstanding, you were corrected within minutes by two normal, non-staff users. If anything, this is evidence that the information is well known, and that you were simply misinformed.
2. I don't know. Have you reported the thread or contacted a senior staff member to ask this question?
I don't get warnings, and I don't have a specific complaint that concerns me. I won't name names, but sometimes there's a distinct WTH when I read a congratulations thread.
So you believe it's enough of a problem to complain about in the abstract, but not enough of a problem to do anything constructive to improve the situation? That doesn't seem like a helpful approach.
To the extent that people believe croneyism will occur because new staff members are approved by current staff members, it does nothing. No process short of selection by regular members could.
The criticism was usually that the targeted hiring system meant that only members who were "buddies" with current staff members would be approached for staff positions, and that if such a process were used exclusively for hiring, it would lead to situations where sub-par members were approached simply because they were friends rather than because they were talented. Targeted hiring can lead to a "keys under the lamppost" situation, where you only look at a select group of people and thus artificially limit your choices. By keeping applications open all the time, quality members who aren't friends with any staff members can make themselves known to the staff.
That's a reasonable assertion. I just worry that it opens the door to people who are trying to make a quick power grab for some reason or another or otherwise would be unfit to serve, and it doesn't really stop preferential hiring either. (Important Note: I'm speaking purely in hypotheticals here.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
To be honest I feel like ludd_gang brings up some valid points and I honestly don't see how anyone could change Human Nature. Some people are just jerks.
Being a jerk is not only an ineffective way to moderate, it's also explicitly prohibited by the Staff Code of Conduct. If you see a staff member behaving in an inappropriate, unprofessional, or "jerkish" manner, you should report that to a senior staff member.
So you believe it's enough of a problem to complain about in the abstract, but not enough of a problem to do anything constructive to improve the situation? That doesn't seem like a helpful approach.
I'm not going to publicly call out individuals. Just looking at post histories it should be pretty obvious who would make a friendly moderator.
I will publicly mention two positives who come to mind: Cardfather and Galspanic. These members were outstandingly nice folks that became mods.
1. You've provided no evidence that the information is not well known. In fact, after you posted a misunderstanding, you were corrected within minutes by two normal, non-staff users. If anything, this is evidence that the information is well known, and that you were simply misinformed.
2. I don't know. Have you reported the thread or contacted a senior staff member to ask this question?
Yo... Hold the phone a minute, please, sir.
1. "Two normal, non-staff users"? You were staff until recently, and I seem to have this idea that CorpT was, at least at some point. (And I could be wrong about that, but absolutely sure about you.) So, again, not well-known.
2. I didn't think of it? I figured that people were just busy and didn't have the time to do it, or didn't want to, or whatever. I also only noticed she was demodded yesterday. Cut me a little slack, man.
3. Why the attitude, for real? I made a suggestion and you flew off the handle at me over NOTHING. Seriously, maybe it's better that you're just a normal, non-staff user at this point. You've got a lot of anger there, dude. Take it easy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
I'm not going to publicly call out individuals. Just looking at post histories it should be pretty obvious who would make a friendly moderator.
I will publicly mention two positives who come to mind: Cardfather and Galspanic. These members were outstandingly nice folks that became mods.
You don't have to (and indeed should not) call people out publicly. That's why the Staff Inbox and the private message system are available. As I pointed out above, unprofessional conduct or communication is prohibited by the Staff Code of Conduct and should be reported (in private) to the senior staff. Complaining about vague issues in the abstract while simultaneously doing nothing to communicate the necessary details to the people who can improve the situation is meaningless.
Being a jerk is not only an ineffective way to moderate, it's also explicitly prohibited by the Staff Code of Conduct. If you see a staff member behaving in an inappropriate, unprofessional, or "jerkish" manner, you should report that to a senior staff member.
Ok. I was speaking purely in hypotheticals. Most staff I have seen have just been doing their job.
IDEA: Maybe some of you site devs could get together and make some custom MTGS Card Protectors, Playmats, and Apparel. I would buy it for sure.
Signature and Avatar by Inkfox Aesthetics
Kireek, your argument works more in your favor without the closing "**** you"s, FYI. Cut these guys some slack.
( N_S ), I can only hope that your words match your intentions and your future actions.
This thread's been pretty good so far. A lot of valid points being raised. Is it possible, like with Kireek's case, that there may be an issue with too many cooks, so to speak? Seems like some agreed, some didn't, and nothing was done (regardless of Kireek's inaction vis-a-vis challenging the ruling).
I think this site would benefit from a lot more transparency. We started to have it, but it's gone. I noticed no one's reported on mod staff changes in the thread in CI/Special Occasions in months. I noticed when I went to find out why MandersHex was no longer a mod.
I think that when mods/globals/admins discuss the merits of a ruling, the public should at least be aware of the final result. Think of it like a court - you don't read the deliberations, just the final ruling and the opinions on both sides of the issue. Then, at the least, a public discussion can take place, where the merits of the ruling, and the staff's opinions, can be discussed. This way, the spirit of the rules becomes clearer to both staff and public.
The less transparency around a decision, the more conspiracy theories and such form around that. Lack of information inspires others to fill in the blanks themselves... and likely incorrectly.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
You're probably looking in the wrong place.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=331613&page=8
To be sure, an number of the mods are routinely friendly and capable of reining in problem members. But some choices have left me scratching my head.
If you want a welcoming site, you need welcoming moderation. It can be tight moderation, but it needs an underlying friendly attitude.
It's impossible to answer a question like this without specifics. There are dozens of moderators that have been hired and promoted over a period of years by nearly a dozen different administrators. If you believe a moderator is not performing his or her duty appropriately, you should contact a senior staff member so that you can explain and provide evidence for your complaint.
I think a better question is: Why does the staff choose to pick new moderators via application rather than by request? I think the community as a whole would get better moderators if the community with staff input requested that certain members (who are agreed to be exemplary members) were asked to serve for some period of time, in contrast to the current system of requiring members to apply for moderator positions. The current method just doesn't seem to line up the incentives with the goals.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
Both methods are actually used. The idea of requesting people to be moderators is referred to as "targetted hiring" by the staff, and was implemented shortly after the last round of public applications in December 2011. The system has been successfully used a number of times, but has been sharply criticized as being more likely to lead to "croneyism". The current system of always-open applications was implemented to create a "hybrid" system as a form of checks-and-balances.
If this site just did a mass streamlining and pruning of the boards, and played to their strengths, which were explained in this post for the most part, adding in trading post, it would do quite a bit of good.
Tentposts of this site, IMO, and the only boards I would leave around if I could delete boards.
Rumor Mill (obviously the foundation)
Trading Post
EDH/Cube
Rulings
Mafia (i guess people like this, but it seems entirely out of place and could be made a private board or something)
Standard will never be truly 'fixed'. The people who post on this forum are trying to pull it in 1000 different directions, and every new change to the standard forum causes new issues.
Legacy is even harder to pull off, and even less likely to work out than standard.
Play to the strengths rather than keep on a bunch of things that never worked like they should have.
But honestly, image leeching is no longer something that should be infracted for anyway. Websites can handle the traffic. Exceptions include websites when they just updated with an official spoiler, and WoTCs site with spoiler information in general, but still, not really a big deal.
A true legacy superstar is among us, and one of the louder voices on twitter that expresses displeasure with the site.
If it matters, Joey Pasco and Marshall Sutcliffe also echo similar concerns to what Mark expressed.
Think about that one for a little while.
"Honestly what does infracting 6 posters in a row who are trying to speculate on a rumor mill thread do for the community?"
"Honestly what does closing a rumor mill thread too soon do for the community?"
"Honestly what does allowing spammy posts to run rampant in the rumor mill do for the community?"
I mean, don't you guys want to have that 'guest' to member ratio go down ever?
I'm sure, at this point in the site's lifespan, most of those people are banned.
Just because people are viewing the site, doesn't mean they are contributing to the site. Only people will accounts can post.
Twitter
My point was that the user provided no evidence that current staff practices are discouraging membership. Nor did you.
That makes sense to some extent, but I'm not sure quite how the current system of applications really corrects the problem of cronyism (I make this statement in the abstract, and am not suggesting that it is or isn't an actual problem.), since it's still staff-made decisions in a private subforum that neither I nor any other non-staff member has access to.
Would you elaborate on how the current system alleviates the allegations of cronyism, corruption, etc.?
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
What we do well is casual-ish content and rumors. There really aren't that many sites out there for casual Magic players other than GatheringMagic. It would be cool to see Salvation evolve into a chill place for newbies and people who don't take the game so damn seriously.
To the extent that people believe croneyism will occur because new staff members are approved by current staff members, it does nothing. No process short of selection by regular members could.
The criticism was usually that the targeted hiring system meant that only members who were "buddies" with current staff members would be approached for staff positions, and that if such a process were used exclusively for hiring, it would lead to situations where sub-par members were approached simply because they were friends rather than because they were talented. Targeted hiring can lead to a "keys under the lamppost" situation, where you only look at a select group of people and thus artificially limit your choices. By keeping applications open all the time, quality members who aren't friends with any staff members can make themselves known to the staff.
I wasn't arguing that they were.
Quality over quantity is a thing too, I'd rather have 1 new member who can post intelligently and add relevant things to the site than 50 people posting youtube-comment level stuff, riding the line between 'spam' and acceptable posts.
Twitter
Guys, thanks for the tips. But this is part of my point. If this information is being recorded in that spot now...
A) Why isn't that more well-known? ... and
B) Why is there still a sticky in Special Occasions entitled, "New Moderators and Staff Shifting" (or close to it), that hasn't been updated in months? Or, more appropriately, why was that thread not linked to the new location and that thread unstickied?
Maybe seds is right when he says we could maybe do some house cleaning to reorganize... But from the ground up, no sacred cows, like the site was being fully redesigned. Some parts of this forum really are a beast to get through...
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
And fun. We need to be a fun site to visit.
My YouTube Channel
"Appropriate" doesn't always mean "friendly".
I don't get warnings, and I don't have a specific complaint that concerns me. I won't name names, but sometimes there's a distinct WTH when I read a congratulations thread.
@ Drifting Skies: I agree. "Hey, this person is cool and posts a lot" is a good qualification. "This person likes to antagonize folks and posts a lot" is not so great.
1. You've provided no evidence that the information is not well known. In fact, after you posted a misunderstanding, you were corrected within minutes by two normal, non-staff users. If anything, this is evidence that the information is well known, and that you were simply misinformed.
2. I don't know. Have you reported the thread or contacted a senior staff member to ask this question?
So you believe it's enough of a problem to complain about in the abstract, but not enough of a problem to do anything constructive to improve the situation? That doesn't seem like a helpful approach.
That's a reasonable assertion. I just worry that it opens the door to people who are trying to make a quick power grab for some reason or another or otherwise would be unfit to serve, and it doesn't really stop preferential hiring either. (Important Note: I'm speaking purely in hypotheticals here.)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
Signature and Avatar by Inkfox Aesthetics
Being a jerk is not only an ineffective way to moderate, it's also explicitly prohibited by the Staff Code of Conduct. If you see a staff member behaving in an inappropriate, unprofessional, or "jerkish" manner, you should report that to a senior staff member.
I'm not going to publicly call out individuals. Just looking at post histories it should be pretty obvious who would make a friendly moderator.
I will publicly mention two positives who come to mind: Cardfather and Galspanic. These members were outstandingly nice folks that became mods.
1. "Two normal, non-staff users"? You were staff until recently, and I seem to have this idea that CorpT was, at least at some point. (And I could be wrong about that, but absolutely sure about you.) So, again, not well-known.
2. I didn't think of it? I figured that people were just busy and didn't have the time to do it, or didn't want to, or whatever. I also only noticed she was demodded yesterday. Cut me a little slack, man.
3. Why the attitude, for real? I made a suggestion and you flew off the handle at me over NOTHING. Seriously, maybe it's better that you're just a normal, non-staff user at this point. You've got a lot of anger there, dude. Take it easy.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
You don't have to (and indeed should not) call people out publicly. That's why the Staff Inbox and the private message system are available. As I pointed out above, unprofessional conduct or communication is prohibited by the Staff Code of Conduct and should be reported (in private) to the senior staff. Complaining about vague issues in the abstract while simultaneously doing nothing to communicate the necessary details to the people who can improve the situation is meaningless.
Ok. I was speaking purely in hypotheticals. Most staff I have seen have just been doing their job.
Signature and Avatar by Inkfox Aesthetics