I hardly think that crucible is a difficuly word. Aside from its use in the literary world which does tend to extend beyond its native country, anyone who has any experience within the field of science knows what a crucible is. Aside from the point as to whether crucible is a difficult or strange word or not one must consider the fact that words are used not to be difficult or to be easy but instead to provide a meaning within the context of a sentence or paragraph. When looking at language in this light one can see that after considering the denotation, connotation, and colloquialisms associated with each word as well as the context within which it is used there are no such things as synonyms. Each word carries with it its own unique meaning and as such no other word is appropriate for what the speaker or writer means with the word they chose. Perhaps, they meant something else and used an incorrect word or perhaps after reviewing their concept they realize that their initial thought on the meaning of their phrase has changed either way a word is a word and as such is neither difficult nor easy. Just because a word is not used frequently within an area of the world or a country does not mean that one must stray from its use it just means that the person intending to use the word has to be sure that it is indeed the exact choice that they wish to use. I personally think that any time we choose to intentionally switch our diction for the mere sake of giving in to the laziness or ignorance of the masses then we lose a lot more than the true meaning of our phrase.
In the end does it mean much in this case?? Probably not, since the selected names were probably based off of an arbitrary selection of words carrying a similar meaning. Now if in turn the level order is in fact based off of some coordinating characteristics of the terms, perhaps something such as the standard size of the material object defined by each word or the varying degrees of complexity with which each chosen word is used in their real life exemplifications, then there might be an argument to necessitate keeping the list as provided by the original poster. Otherwise, if the selection is arbitrary smith, forge, crucible, et cetera makes little difference.
Back on to the subject of the changes to the card ideas section: I understand your concern kael hate but I really don't think that you have as much to worry about as you think that you do. Here is the way I see it... The majority of players that you have expressed your concern about likely are not going to be putting forth the effort to register to the forums and post into the ideas or vote on them. Secondly, the experienced players who understand the game mechanics more or less have a responsibility as concerned players in this game to expound their understanding on the mechanics in question with new card ideas to those who do not yet understand them. By taking up the responsibility as an experienced player in the community and assisting those who are still naive then you can successfully generate more individuals that are educated concerning the game's mechanics. However, if you simply provide privileges to a select few based off of some nondescript number then you push potential gamers away. I have seen many small free online games quickly drop out of existence because too much emphasis was based on the opinion of those who had been around the longest or those that the developers were friends with. It is imperative in an online gaming situation that all members feel an equality or at least a potential for equality. By excluding members from being able to vote on new ideas introduced into the card selections you will likely destroy that feeling of equality.
Don't get me wrong there are appropriate measures with which one can set up a system such as you are advocating but it has nothing to do with a player's experience within the game or reputation on the forums. If a set selection of individuals are to be placed into such a position of power as you have suggested then it must be done based on unbiased expertise. You can not reliably select candidates for inclusion within that group based off of experience because time and amount of play within the game does not guarantee that you are the most qualified for deciding issues that affect the entire community of that game. Now if a card development team were to be created that had been proven to be unbiased, rational, and educated about the game and its mechanics that was responsible for creating new card ideas, monitoring new card proposals, and testing their effects on the game then I could support that. However, if someone had joined a week ago or someone had been playing for years it wouldn't matter as long as they could show their proficiency in the tasks required of them. Meanwhile, this would serve to eliminate new card ideas that would be detrimental to the game while still providing all members to vote on new card ideas that passed the inspections of the card development team.
I think that the tiered level system provided previously could set up a good foundation for such a system to be implemented as long as zanz is willing to put forth the effort and time necessary to ensure that a good team is set in place for the card development team.
If a team can't be chosen off of objective qualifications that actually have something to do with their ability to provide appropriate card suggestions then it still falls back to a system such as is currently offered by the changes to the card ideas section where all members in the game's community have the ability to vote on new card proposals, and it falls on the explanations, reason, and logic of the knowledgeable community to ensure that those who are uneducated about certain game mechanics are given the appropriate information to be able to make a proper decision regarding new card ideas being proposed.
