Future of the TCG & OCG Section

[The Warden]

Well, even as of right now there is literally nothing stopping you guys from posting archetype discussions, like, at all.

[VCR_CAT]

These rules range from just being purely cosmetic, to completely superfluous, and then to over complicated. None of them actually address any problems with discussions going on between members.

 

For leaks, I think the only necessary rule is that all the effects/name/etc. of the card(s) you're posting should be there. No more threads that are posted containing only a picture and nothing else. But regardless of that, flooding isn't an issue, never had been an issue, and isn't something that needs to be focused on so much.

 

The thread tags thing is completely unnecessary and I strongly urge you to go back on that. We can tell what a thread's about by the title and its contents; we don't need this extra convolution for the creation of threads.

 

Finally, do you have any plans to address and enforce the advanced clause for the section? Because I'm still seeing threads and posts (I can seriously report them for you if you'd like) that treat this section more like Misc. than anything else.

[Darj]

Needless to say, but pointing it out as a for-the-record thing as I have yet to see it mentioned: Leak threads should also include the source of said leaks so we can see from where the info is coming from, check for other stuff in the source site, and check for updates on translations corrections.

[The Warden]

The deadline for my plans for the TCG section is fast approaching, so if any of you want to suggest changes to my plans, better do it now before the changes are set in stone.

 

The plans can be found here: https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/369028-future-changes-to-the-tcg-section-2nd-draft/

[Blake]

My biggest complaints is that this doesn't improve much of anything. It just seems like posturing.

 

Linking to source for leaks doesn't really matter. It'll be on YGOrg or on Maxut's blog 9/10, and any remous are generally text-only that are stated as such by the poster, such as the list of LVP1 archetypes.

 

The Advanced Clause forcing 2 lines of thought from OP doesn't do much of anything. It's easy to BS 2 lines, so it's mostly just a timesink for the OP, and it's a terrible addition during leak season. Again, not even a thing that is disagreeable aside from leak posting, which is more a problem with a certain someone posting them in mismatched batches and with poorly named topics.

 

There's also topics where you don't even need to post 2 lines of text. This isn't a creative section where feedback is needed, and you can't force people to be good or helpful at YGO, so live and let live here.

 

While I don't disagree with having people type up decklists, this is yet another mostly cosmetic rule. No one has a problem with asking or answering "What's X card to the right of Y?"

 

Same deal with the tags. They're not impractical, but it's devoid of any actual change, just making the section slightly more organized. Makes more sense to have seperate sections for them at that point, despite the low amount of traffic a certain one will generate.

 

Generally just boils down to:
Okay, not objectionable.

But what does it actually do?

 

There's not much to object to, AC aside, but there's also no real point to implementing this stuff, outside of the changes to actual sections with Discussion and News, which are good changes.

 

I think a rule of having to include some sort of identifying factor in the name of a topic, without personal spin, should be a thing. Like you could post "Dragonite [Poki Draco]", but just "Dragonite holding an Aspear Berry" would be wrong.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I disagree with advanced clause, but only in a specific instance. On threads for leaks, or otherwise new reveals, there is no real need for two lines.

 

Ordinarily, the advanced clause on starting threads makes sense. It answers the question of "why is this a thread" and "why are we discussing this". It acts as a seed for conversation on something that people may already have discussed.

 

This reasoning does not apply to leaks/reveals. The reason the thread is there is because the cards are new. The OP doesn't need to have any specific thoughts on them for their thread to be a relevant contribution to the forum, because these cards are things people haven't seen before. That alone is enough to justify the thread.

 

The enforcement of the AC on leak/reveal threads also brings with it the issue that, at the moment of reveal, it can be difficult to put out two lines, or, as black says, what you come up with is of little meaning. This results in people rushing to post the same thread first, and adds the step of adding two lines that very well may not mean anything. Adding steps increases the amount of time it take to post a thread, thus increasing the amount of time that they cannot see the subforum and other recent threads. This increases the volume of duplicate topics, and since this is an event resolved by preserving the original, actively encourages the OP to have the fastest two lines to type, rather than something meaningful.

[Darj]

Linking to source for leaks doesn't really matter. It'll be on YGOrg or on Maxut's blog 9/10, and any remous are generally text-only that are stated as such by the poster, such as the list of LVP1 archetypes.

 

IMO it is still important because some leaks or teasers come from Facebook or Twitter posts, or that japanese website and IDK how it's called, unless that's the Maxut blog you mention.

 

I think a rule of having to include some sort of identifying factor in the name of a topic, without personal spin, should be a thing. Like you could post "Dragonite [Poki Draco]", but just "Dragonite holding an Aspear Berry" would be wrong.

 

Wait, what? That's not a rule yet?

[Blake]

IMO it is still important because some leaks or teasers come from Facebook or Twitter posts, or that japanese website and IDK how it's called, unless that's the Maxut blog you mention.

 

 

Wait, what? That's not a rule yet?

Maxut is the JP site that isn't the official YGO JP site, which has also been doing reveals.

 

YGOrg is where the translations for those often come from, aside from homebrew translations that pop up before YGOrg gets to the point, so that's by far a moot point. 

 

There's also TCG cards, which is a more fair point I guess, but that also generally leads back to the official site.

 

It's mostly just adding a step that doesn't improve or change anything. If there's no validity, it can easily be discredited and handled, but even an "unsourced" post will soon show up on YGOrg to back it up.

 

The only thing this could potentially help is needing finalized translations... but YGOrg's translations often stay mistranslated for large periods of time, so.

 

It's just moot.

[Darj]

Maxut is the JP site that isn't the official YGO JP site, which has also been doing reveals.

 

YGOrg is where the translations for those often come from, aside from homebrew translations that pop up before YGOrg gets to the point, so that's by far a moot point. 

 

There's also TCG cards, which is a more fair point I guess, but that also generally leads back to the official site.

 

It's mostly just adding a step that doesn't improve or change anything. If there's no validity, it can easily be discredited and handled, but even an "unsourced" post will soon show up on YGOrg to back it up.

 

The only thing this could potentially help is needing finalized translations... but YGOrg's translations often stay mistranslated for large periods of time, so.

 

It's just moot.

 

IDK, sometimes I see a leak and I'm a bit skeptical, but then I have to go hunt for the source myself to confirm, or by the time I checked the thread or someone had already asked for the source and the poster provided it, and that's an inconvenience for the thread reader. It has also happened the effect is later updated/fixed in the source, but not in the thread, so having the source included makes it easier for the readers to look at, well, the source and confirm by themselves.

Also we never know when some user may try to be funny with a fake leak with no source whatsoever. Sure, I don't think it has ever happened, but do we really need to wait for it to happen to make it a rule?

[Blake]

IDK, sometimes I see a leak and I'm a bit skeptical, but then I have to go hunt for the source myself to confirm, or wait for someone to ask for it for the poster to add it, so that's an inconvenience for the thread reader. It has also happened the effect is later updated/fixed in the source, but not in the thread, so having the source included makes it easier for the readers to look at, well, the source and confirm by themselves.

But it's just a small roadblock for the poster. It's not inconvenient to say "lemme look at YGOrg", and you have no reason to be skeptical if there's a picture, given how long it's been since we've had a false card leaked. If it's written, sure, but most of these things aren't written.

 

Even then, if it's batch leaks, do you want them to repost the link in every single thread from said batch of leaks? That's just begging for someone to forget once and get warned for it.

 

The sources for cards are narrow enough that anyone actually seeking to verify them should be able to find it. JP Twitter, TCG Twitter, TCG/OCG Site, Maxut, YGOrg. That's pretty much everything. FB is the only wild card.

 

Encouraged, sure, whatever, but it seems like a superfluous rule.

[Darj]

But it's just a small roadblock for the poster. It's not inconvenient to say "lemme look at YGOrg", and you have no reason to be skeptical if there's a picture, given how long it's been since we've had a false card leaked. If it's written, sure, but most of these things aren't written.

 

Even then, if it's batch leaks, do you want them to repost the link in every single thread from said batch of leaks? That's just begging for someone to forget once and get warned for it.

 

The sources for cards are narrow enough that anyone actually seeking to verify them should be able to find it. JP Twitter, TCG Twitter, TCG/OCG Site, Maxut, YGOrg. That's pretty much everything.

 

Encouraged, sure, whatever, but it seems like a superfluous rule.

 

Actually, I remember seeing some leak threads with only text, and those are the ones I was skeptical about. And is it really that hard to copy/paste the link of the very same website you are looking at for the leak? Come on, you can't say it's a hassle, especially when you are already copy/pasting the card image and/or text, and providing sources is a good practice anyway.

[Blake]

Actually, I remember seeing some leak threads with only text, and those are the ones I was skeptical about. And is it really that hard to copy/paste the link of the very same website you are looking at for the leak? Come on, you can't say it's a hassle, especially when you are already copy/pasting the card image and/or text, and providing sources is a good practice anyway.

It's easy to forget. You're mass-posting from those big leaks, it's very easy to make a misstep.

 

There's no reason to distrust info. The rumor effects never get posted really, and that's the only time any sort of source is really needed. It's completely non-essential to post the source.

[Darj]

It's easy to forget. You're mass-posting from those big leaks, it's very easy to make a misstep.

 

There's no reason to distrust info. The rumor effects never get posted really, and that's the only time any sort of source is really needed. It's completely non-essential to post the source.

 

I don't exactly agree with those points. I guess it is easy to forget if you are not used to providing sources or references, but doing so is a good habit to have in academics, forums, debates, etc. If you are worried about punishments for missing a source link, heck, I was once warned with 3 points for breaking the Advanced Clause in CC and I was just fine; surely an user taking some warns for rushing the leaks will be just fine as well, and hopefully will learn the lesson of, you know, taking some time to properly post the leak threads, instead of rushing with this "mass-posting" of leaks.

 

As for distrust, IDK you but some cards have been so outrageous that I indeed wanted to check the source myself. As an example, I can bring up "Dragoons of Draconia", which I legitimately thought was a custom card before I realized it was posted in the TCG section.

 

Anyway, I thought of a different point:

If it's so easy to find and check for leaks, why rush to post them here in the first place then? Wouldn't it be more ordered to not allow such rushed mass-posting of leak threads in the section at all and instead request for a proper starting discussion for them? For the record, I'm not advocating for this, but curious to read your thoughts on this approach.

 

Even then, if it's batch leaks, do you want them to repost the link in every single thread from said batch of leaks? That's just begging for someone to forget once and get warned for it.

 

Answering this, no, personally I wouldn't mind if the same link is posted in multiple threads in cases of batches.

[Blake]

I don't exactly agree with those points. I guess it is easy to forget if you are not used to providing sources or references, but doing so is a good habit to have in academics, forums, debates, etc. If you are worried about punishments for missing a source link, heck, I was once warned with 3 points for breaking the Advanced Clause in CC and I was just fine; surely an user taking some warns for rushing the leaks will be just fine as well, and hopefully it will learn the lesson of, you know, taking some time to properly post the leak threads, instead of rushing with this "mass-posting" of leaks.

 

As for distrust, IDK you but some cards have been so outrageous that I indeed wanted to check the source myself. As an example, I can bring up "Dragoons of Draconia", which I legitimately thought was a custom card before I realized it was posted in the TCG section.

 

Anyway, I thought of a different point:

If it's so easy to find and check the leaks, why rush to post them here in the first place then? Wouldn't it be more ordered to not allow such rushed mass-posting of leak threads in the section at all and instead request for a proper starting discussion for them? For the record, I'm not advocating for this, but curious to read your thoughts on this approach.

There's no reason for it to be this way, though. It's entirely "I want them to save me time", and otherwise just a pointless rule to either overenforce or let fall by the wayside, like many others. The section stands to gain nothing by requiring sources be posted any time a card is revealed.

 

What's wrong with posting the leaks as they come? It alerts people to what's been done, and generally causes a spike in section activity. It's never been an issue, outside of a certain abusing party, and it's just fun to bring news to people. I can't do it as much now that I have things to do that keep me on a good sleep schedule, but it was still just nice to spread the news like that.

 

Unless we're going to get into a discussion about post count, which has largely been disregarded with time, there's no reason to restrict the leaks being posted in proper fashion.

[VCR_CAT]

Posting source is largely unnecessary. It's difficult to falsify a leak and not have it be easily disproven/punished if it ever came up, and in the case of rumor threads, those should be largely discouraged outside of a more general discussion forum (whatever the heck it would be called after the needless changes). Rumors should never be treated as what's going to be the real thing, so if those just aren't posted in the news there's not really a need for linking your source.

 

For Leak Times, yeah no the advanced clause for the OP is largely unnecessary. The purpose of the AC should be to discourage shitposting, which has happened quite a few times in the recent past, not to just add a pointless addition to time.

 

Really, all we need the topics to be are: accurately titled, well-organized and easy to read/understand. In the case of batch-leaks, it would be nice to have separate threads for each card, but that adds a lot of other needless efforts and steps that aren't needed, and having a thread for each batch isn't the problem.

 

Also, people should remember that shift+ctrl+v or paste-without-formatting is a thing that should be done. It's not hard to make it look nice, and adds like no time to posting the thread.

[Darj]

Alright, I agree the source it's not a fundamental thing to include in a leak thread, and leak threads are helpful because I in fact often find about an new cards through here than YGOrog and the other sites, although I appreciate when users include sources because they do save me time of checking YGOrg or scouting for other sites, plus in a way it gives more validity to their threads. What I cannot grasp is how copy/pasting the link along the thread content can be so much of a hassle, but I seems it's too much to ask for some. Those few seconds do matter if you are on a "leak-posting race", huh.

[The Warden]

Alright, I reread through this and have made changes accordingly.