There are a lot of decks I'd choose before something subpar, but I haven't submitted any so I have no right to complain, only suggest. The writing has left a bit to be desired from DIotM for quite a while, from subpar decks to grammar, spelling and lacking card explanations, but unless you volunteer to do a more thorough job, you should keep the vitriol down. Constructive feedback is what's needed.
The rest is great quality as always.
The issue is I've already submitted, as well as suggested, and detailed what is wrong with what is twice in a row now.
Of course, the rest of the NL is good as usual - as I've already stated in the past newsletter thread - but the DIotM is only going further downhill. The card explanations aren't even badly written, they're just downright
wrong. Am I supposed to take a DIotM that claims the point of the deck is to fractal a weapon, but simultaneously says you have six AWs
"in case of RT" seriously? That's absurd for anyone who knows what AW and Fractal does.
DIotM has, and will always be, a place to showcase and explain decks. If you can't do that, then it's wiser to just leave it blank. I've given great detail and suggestion, both on public and in PM's since the last newsletter for DIotM. And getting this in return is, if anything, depressing.
DIotM won't have time to get made but you still don't want to leave it blank? Well that's nice and dandy and fine but could we at least get a
proper explanation of the cards instead of some of what we read which are - please correct me if I'm wrong in this one -
just not even close to what the deck wants to do, and further on,
not even close to what the very own Newsletter said the deck was about? It's fine - it doesn't have to be perfect, flawless, it doesn't even have to be good, I can tolerate if it's mediocre just for the sake of being there, but being
wrong? This is like placing some random guy's name in the Tournament section saying he won a tournament just 'cause I don't remember or couldn't get the name of whoever won.
I'm not saying it's the fault of the Newsletter Writers entirely, of course the one at fault is ultimately the one who wrote this, but the NL could at least proofread it? You could like check it out? Unsure if it's good; send it to someone, anyone, you have friends, I
openly volunteer to read anything you guys may ever publish before you do so which is something
I have done over and over again and Krzy himself knows this as I have helped NL before, during, and after all my duties with it and I'm sure
anyone else would also be glad to help you, you also have friends in this forum you could send it to; yet you still choose to publish it without a second thought?
Come on. I have already said what is wrong with the DIotM and it is
not the first time, yet there still was no proofreading of any sort. Yeah this is a volunteer work,
I understand that more than over half of you and I know fully well
how hard it is to get people to help with the Newsletter, I've done this job too, but you should not stop looking or trying to improve it. I have
detailed what is wrong more than once and the fact that the mistakes are repeated when
you're actually getting feedback, which is more than what any of the past Newsletter Writers ever had because all they - and I - received was "yah good nl bro" is saddening, both as an ex-staffer and as a community member.
If you did not receive any DIotM when someone told you they'd send you one and you publish it blank or publish a quickly written one, that's fine, but if you had the time to do so and it contains wrong information then my friend you should probably
really recheck what you're doing and start focusing more on solving the issues of this specific part of the Newsletter.
