Is there a way with the forum software to require card tags in a thread before it is allowed to be posted?
More specific:
If a user attempts to post a new thread here (not a reply), if the software doesn't detect card tags in the post itself, maybe then the user is prompted with a notice like "This question doesn't contain any card tags. Card tags are useful for [reasons]. Card tags can be added by [explanation]. If your question contains references to specific cards, please add card tags now. If card tags aren't needed for this question, please click Submit again." or something like that. I still see threads started without card tags despite several threads/stickies/notices asking for them prior to starting a thread here.
Anyway, just a thought, and again, I don't know if the software is capable of this, or how much effort it would take to implement. (And hopefully this is the sort of discussion you're looking for in this thread; if not, feel free to delete this post.)
Is there a way with the forum software to require card tags in a thread before it is allowed to be posted?
Not feasibly.
I don't think that would be something we'd want, either. While the vast majority of Rulings questions are card-specific (or at least reference cards), we do occasionally have questions that don't. Tournament rules enforcement, generic questions that aren't card specific at all, etc. It would become a "reference a random card just because" thing.
At most, we'd want an extra reminder on the page, but nothing that would pop up or stop the post.
Is there a way with the forum software to require card tags in a thread before it is allowed to be posted?
Not feasibly.
I don't think that would be something we'd want, either. While the vast majority of Rulings questions are card-specific (or at least reference cards), we do occasionally have questions that don't. Tournament rules enforcement, generic questions that aren't card specific at all, etc. It would become a "reference a random card just because" thing.
At most, we'd want an extra reminder on the page, but nothing that would pop up or stop the post.
The point of having "If card tags aren't needed for this question, please click Submit again." at the end of the "stop" would be to allow a post to go through without the card tags, although I can see I should have been more clear on that in my first post. Basically, there would be one "stop", then the user can submit without card tags after that "stop".
For reference, the idea comes from Wikipedia, where if I attempt to submit an edit without an edit summary, it stops me and asks if I'm sure I don't want to have an edit summary. If I don't add one after the first "stop", the edit is saved anyway. But I assume the software there is quite different than here. Since you say it's not feasible here, fair enough.
Perhaps this is not the right forum for my question. Please forgive.
Traffic has augmented in this Forum. Perhaps it it time to split it in two sub-forums: one for ruleplay questions (pertaining to the Comprehensive Rulebook, and rulings) and one for organized play (pertaining to tournaments rules, penalties and scoring). Some of you might be unaware that some of us have no interest whatsoever in organized play; all we care about is to play the game with friends. I cannot be alone in this!
Where can I post this suggestion, so that Website Management hears it?
And is there a way for other posters, whom feel like me, to, shall we say, 'encourage' Management to split the forum?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Allow me to respectfully propose an improvement for this specific forum.
Traffic has augmented sharply in the Magic Rulings Forum. Perhaps it's time it got split into sub-forums: Rules Questions, Policy Questions & Rules Discussion, for example.
Although many players must be interested by all three of those subjects, I'm convinced it's not the case for everyone. Far from it, I'd guess.
Sub-forums would allow people to focus on their specific areas of interest and, more importantly, avoid those threads pertaining to subjects they don't care about.
There is also an open Mod spot, maybe the new one can make a move if its desired.
Teia's here to save the day.
As far as the suggestion itself goes, it it something worth considering, although splintering the forum too much can actually lead to a noticeable decrease in traffic. That said, it would be enlightening to see what the rest of this forum's user base thinks of this, so everyone's welcome to post here with their views on the subject. The staff always tries to do what's best for the community, but we can only truly know what's best for the community when communication goes two-way, after all.
I personally don't love the idea, I like coming to a single place for all question types. If a thread isn't of the kind that interests you, you can usually figure that in a few secs and skip it. And traffic isn't that fast, I can easily follow everything. As someone who answers questions of all types, I like having only one page to refresh.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
As far as the suggestion itself goes, it it something worth considering, although splintering the forum too much can actually lead to a noticeable decrease in traffic. That said, it would be enlightening to see what the rest of this forum's user base thinks of this, so everyone's welcome to post here with their views on the subject. The staff always tries to do what's best for the community, but we can only truly know what's best for the community when communication goes two-way, after all.
I'm in agreement with MadMageQc. While the amount of traffic to the Rulings forum may have increased significantly recently, it's not so much so as to warrant the split, I don't think. I think that keeping the Rulings forum as one unit would be best.
I'm not sure how well the thread title prefix tags work in other forums on the site, but maybe there could be a tag system for the Rulings forum as well. There could be threads whose titles are something like the following:
[Question] How does trample work with protection?
[Policy] How do I handle a missed trigger in this situation?
[Rules Templating] Why does the state-based action for 0 or less toughness exist?
(The tag names could be changed accordingly; this is just proof of concept.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
We could certainly have prefixes, though obviously we couldn't reasonably make them mandatory. Card tags already generate a lot of warnings from people who sign up specifically to ask questions, after all. It'd be useful when employed, though, even if it wouldn't likely be employed as much as one might like.
The proposed split and/or classification system solves no existing problem and has the potential to introduce more confusion. Many of the people who need the most help and advice won't know the distinction between the different types, and there will likely be plenty of errant cross-posting and mis-labeling. Some people who are unsure of exactly what type of question they're posting may even hesitate to post at all.
I was rereading the magic rulings rules and this stuck out to me
"2.4 Only Official Spoilers. Questions about mechanics or cards from unreleased sets are allowed only if the mechanic or card in question has been officially previewed on wizards.com. Since card tags won't work for unreleased cards until the cards are in Gatherer, you must use [url] tags to link to the card image from the wizards.com card image gallery so that people can look up the card you're asking about. Questions about rumors that have not been officially previewed belong in the Rumored Card Rulings forum in the Rumor Mill. This includes hypothetical or custom card designs, questions about non-existent cards or mechanics belong in the Custom Card Rulings forum in Custom Card Creation."
Now card tags work for unreleased cards that are not on gatherer. So the bold part of the rule seems outdated. So I think that part of the rule should be changed, since it is no longer relevant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you knew anything about the lore you'd see that they were clearly hinting that the madness on Innistrad was caused by Uncle Istvan wearing Urza's Power Armor ... tainted with Phrexyian Oil"
Graham from Loading Ready Run
The Comprehensive Rules link in the stickied "how to become a judge" thread 404s. Fix it.
Fixed! Thank you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
I just noticed I had Rules Guru under my name, and I was wondering what I had done to earn that.
Oh, the admins didn't PM you guys about this? I thought there would be some kind of invite beforehand. It doesn't seem the title bothers you anyway, but if it does, it can be removed easily…
I was the one who asked for it. When I became moderator for Rulings, the senior mods asked me for things I would like to improve about the forum. I told them I would like the Rules Guru usergroup to be updated. This simple title allows people who read your answers to know that you've been recognized by our community as an expert and a respected teacher of the rules. As of last year, the group hadn't been updated in a long while. Few of the people in it were still active, while knowledgeable, skilled teachers like you who had been answering for years and following our forum rules consistently, were left out of it. I analyzed the forum and identified seven such people : Rezzahan, WizardMN, Artscrafter, willdice, Segoth, DragonFox1001, and yourself. I am quite confident in the comprehensiveness of this list of new additions; though there are other very active contributors on the forum at the moment, none are at your level of experience, or score nearly as high on all the things we look for in a Guru. It seems the admins agreed with me.
Welcome to the fold, my friends. This was long overdue.
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
Thanks for the summary MadMagQC (and thanks for asking Lithl). I was actually wondering the same thing. It doesn't bother me either. It was just unexpected and it is nice to know what prompted the change
Can PlanesWalkers be Commanders in a Commander Deck? Just started playing Mtg this week and am trying to learn as much as I can about the rules and how different cards work etc. Thanks for anyone responses.
I just noticed that the "This thread is not for" list in the first post doesn't explicitly include that. Those of us who have been here (or similar forums) for a while recognize those as special cases of "Conversations that are suited more to a dedicated thread", but that doesn't help first-time posters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
I just noticed that the "This thread is not for" list in the first post doesn't explicitly include that. Those of us who have been here (or similar forums) for a while recognize those as special cases of "Conversations that are suited more to a dedicated thread", but that doesn't help first-time posters.
Good point. I edited the first post with a new bullet to make it clearer. I am leaving these last few posts here as a record of that and as a reminder to would-be posters, except for TimeWasterJoey's question which I have moved to its own thread. I am sending them a PM to explain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This thread is not for:
- Magic Rulings Staff
More specific:
If a user attempts to post a new thread here (not a reply), if the software doesn't detect card tags in the post itself, maybe then the user is prompted with a notice like "This question doesn't contain any card tags. Card tags are useful for [reasons]. Card tags can be added by [explanation]. If your question contains references to specific cards, please add card tags now. If card tags aren't needed for this question, please click Submit again." or something like that. I still see threads started without card tags despite several threads/stickies/notices asking for them prior to starting a thread here.
Anyway, just a thought, and again, I don't know if the software is capable of this, or how much effort it would take to implement. (And hopefully this is the sort of discussion you're looking for in this thread; if not, feel free to delete this post.)
I don't think that would be something we'd want, either. While the vast majority of Rulings questions are card-specific (or at least reference cards), we do occasionally have questions that don't. Tournament rules enforcement, generic questions that aren't card specific at all, etc. It would become a "reference a random card just because" thing.
At most, we'd want an extra reminder on the page, but nothing that would pop up or stop the post.
No longer staff here.
No longer staff here.
The point of having "If card tags aren't needed for this question, please click Submit again." at the end of the "stop" would be to allow a post to go through without the card tags, although I can see I should have been more clear on that in my first post. Basically, there would be one "stop", then the user can submit without card tags after that "stop".
For reference, the idea comes from Wikipedia, where if I attempt to submit an edit without an edit summary, it stops me and asks if I'm sure I don't want to have an edit summary. If I don't add one after the first "stop", the edit is saved anyway. But I assume the software there is quite different than here. Since you say it's not feasible here, fair enough.
Traffic has augmented in this Forum. Perhaps it it time to split it in two sub-forums: one for ruleplay questions (pertaining to the Comprehensive Rulebook, and rulings) and one for organized play (pertaining to tournaments rules, penalties and scoring). Some of you might be unaware that some of us have no interest whatsoever in organized play; all we care about is to play the game with friends. I cannot be alone in this!
Where can I post this suggestion, so that Website Management hears it?
And is there a way for other posters, whom feel like me, to, shall we say, 'encourage' Management to split the forum?
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Traffic has augmented sharply in the Magic Rulings Forum. Perhaps it's time it got split into sub-forums: Rules Questions, Policy Questions & Rules Discussion, for example.
Although many players must be interested by all three of those subjects, I'm convinced it's not the case for everyone. Far from it, I'd guess.
Sub-forums would allow people to focus on their specific areas of interest and, more importantly, avoid those threads pertaining to subjects they don't care about.
What say you?
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
Teia's here to save the day.
As far as the suggestion itself goes, it it something worth considering, although splintering the forum too much can actually lead to a noticeable decrease in traffic. That said, it would be enlightening to see what the rest of this forum's user base thinks of this, so everyone's welcome to post here with their views on the subject. The staff always tries to do what's best for the community, but we can only truly know what's best for the community when communication goes two-way, after all.
I'm in agreement with MadMageQc. While the amount of traffic to the Rulings forum may have increased significantly recently, it's not so much so as to warrant the split, I don't think. I think that keeping the Rulings forum as one unit would be best.
I'm not sure how well the thread title prefix tags work in other forums on the site, but maybe there could be a tag system for the Rulings forum as well. There could be threads whose titles are something like the following:
[Question] How does trample work with protection?
[Policy] How do I handle a missed trigger in this situation?
[Rules Templating] Why does the state-based action for 0 or less toughness exist?
(The tag names could be changed accordingly; this is just proof of concept.)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
"2.4 Only Official Spoilers. Questions about mechanics or cards from unreleased sets are allowed only if the mechanic or card in question has been officially previewed on wizards.com. Since card tags won't work for unreleased cards until the cards are in Gatherer, you must use [url] tags to link to the card image from the wizards.com card image gallery so that people can look up the card you're asking about. Questions about rumors that have not been officially previewed belong in the Rumored Card Rulings forum in the Rumor Mill. This includes hypothetical or custom card designs, questions about non-existent cards or mechanics belong in the Custom Card Rulings forum in Custom Card Creation."
Now card tags work for unreleased cards that are not on gatherer. So the bold part of the rule seems outdated. So I think that part of the rule should be changed, since it is no longer relevant.
Graham from Loading Ready Run
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I was the one who asked for it. When I became moderator for Rulings, the senior mods asked me for things I would like to improve about the forum. I told them I would like the Rules Guru usergroup to be updated. This simple title allows people who read your answers to know that you've been recognized by our community as an expert and a respected teacher of the rules. As of last year, the group hadn't been updated in a long while. Few of the people in it were still active, while knowledgeable, skilled teachers like you who had been answering for years and following our forum rules consistently, were left out of it. I analyzed the forum and identified seven such people : Rezzahan, WizardMN, Artscrafter, willdice, Segoth, DragonFox1001, and yourself. I am quite confident in the comprehensiveness of this list of new additions; though there are other very active contributors on the forum at the moment, none are at your level of experience, or score nearly as high on all the things we look for in a Guru. It seems the admins agreed with me.
Welcome to the fold, my friends. This was long overdue.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Please don't ask rules questions here. Click here to create your own thread.