Can we change the Mono/Duo/Etc. section description to the agreed definitions?

[Essence]

I thought we had changed the mono/duo section descriptions to match the accord reached in the "define a mono-deck" thread.  I don't know when they were changed back (or if I'm hallucinating that they were changed at all), but threads like this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,3728.0.html) clearly indicate that people think and act based on the definitions we reached in the mono-deck thread.  We should run with the definitions that we all agreed upon.

[Scaredgirl]

If you read that thread you are talking about, there are actually many opposing opinions and this "agreed definition" was agreed by me and a couple of others members. It's hardly a a community wide vote or anything like that.

I saw the faults of that definition when we started the Master's competition and changed it to what it's now. Everyone I've talked about it has liked it, nobody complained about it (until now), so this is what we are going to go with.

Someone will always complain no matter what you do. But luckily leadership is about making decisions even though some people get pissed. If I start a poll about every single detail that happens here, I will never get anything done.

In my mind this new system is the most simple and logical of all the different suggestions. It enables mono deck users to use all the cards in their arsenal without taking cards from other elements. It's also really easy to explain and leaves zero room for interpretation.

It's done. Now lets move on. After all this is just semantics.

[PuppyChow]

I would prefer to be able to make a flying eternity mono deck and post it in the mono deck section, but nevermind that.

Oh, and a few of the trio decks I have posted are now quadruple decks, apparently >_>.

Whatever .

"agreed definition" was agreed by me and a couple of others members

Then you should have left it like that instead of changing it again. Just because it doesn't work for a single competition doesn't mean it won't work in every other area.

That was kinda like if the senate (us members that agreed) voted for a certain law and then it got on the presidents desk and he changed it before signing it without consulting the senate.

I just don't like that you sorta went behind everybody else's back with that. Even though I disagree with the new way, I could live with that, but you should have at least let us know.

[Scaredgirl]

I would prefer to be able to make a flying eternity mono deck and post it in the mono deck section, but nevermind that.

Oh, and a few of the trio decks I have posted are now quadruple decks, apparently >_>.

Whatever .

"agreed definition" was agreed by me and a couple of others members

Then you should have left it like that instead of changing it again. Just because it doesn't work for a single competition doesn't mean it won't work in every other area.

That was kinda like if the senate (us members that agreed) voted for a certain law and then it got on the presidents desk and he changed it before signing it without consulting the senate.

I just don't like that you sorta went behind everybody else's back with that. Even though I disagree with the new way, I could live with that, but you should have at least let us know.

I was actually going to start a thread about it (I even talked about that) but I guess I found something better to do.

And like I said earlier, the cool thing about running a forum is that I can change things without PM'ing everyone individually and asking their opinion. While I value your opinion PuppyChow, you do not make the call.

I see no point in continuing this discussion as the matter is resolved and wasting time with this only confuses people. I'll start the thread at some point. While some people will be unhappy (as they always are) I believe the majority will understand why this new system makes sense.