[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92184/aether.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92185/air.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92174/darkness.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92175/death.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92176/earth.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92177/entropy.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92178/fire.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92179/gravity.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92180/life.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92181/light.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92182/time.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92183/water.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92495/flawless.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92499/depletion.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92493/elemental.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92500/reinforcements.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92488/altar.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92150/13.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92188/burst_of_color.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92484/duality.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92483/order.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92485/diversion.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92486/destruction.png[/img]
[img width=289 height=443]http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92487/creation.png[/img]Well, I guess it's a change for better. Some of these event cards seem balanced, but the majority is not fun.Even so, if you don't have 15 upped cards, you don't use a deck with 15 upped cards. It might even be strategic to do that, because if you only have one copy of a rare, and you upgrade it, you can't use it for the rest of the war, unless you're a General or Lieutenant.
Though, I guess it would be indeed hard to make 24 or so balanced event cards.
There wasn't much complaining about the first event card though, so I don't see a reason to assume that all event cards would cause drama. It's only the ones that clearly favor some people, while other people have nothing to say. Eg. everyone is capable of winning 2-0, but not everyone is capable of building 15 upped light cards deck. That's the cause of drama.
I have expressed my opinions elsewhere but the more time I've spent in this community the more hard work I realize ScaredGirl puts into it, and the more I am impressed by that work's quality.What's wrong with expressing an opinion that something isn't fair?
I think this community's reaction to the event cards was infantile and I am very disappointed that they are being canceled. If I were ScaredGirl I would have locked the thread, said "too bad" and forced people to deal with it like non-children.
I think this community's reaction to the event cards was infantile and I am very disappointed that they are being canceled. If I were ScaredGirl I would have locked the thread, said "too bad" and forced people to deal with it like non-children.We should also discuss this War-changing event like adults, and not limit everybody as if they were children. We all realize that SG put time into this, but it just didn't work out the way we all wanted it to. It is a matter of being honest; kind, of course, but still honest.
Nothing. And that's what you all should have done. Instead, you decided to "boycott" an event. That could not be less mature or less productive (or less appropriate).I have expressed my opinions elsewhere but the more time I've spent in this community the more hard work I realize ScaredGirl puts into it, and the more I am impressed by that work's quality.What's wrong with expressing an opinion that something isn't fair?
I think this community's reaction to the event cards was infantile and I am very disappointed that they are being canceled. If I were ScaredGirl I would have locked the thread, said "too bad" and forced people to deal with it like non-children.
I agree with Xinef on this one, the rest of them look like they'd make the war so much more interesting. The cause of the drama, imo, was the age of X element cards (as Kuross said) but rather than simply removing them all, you could just give them a little nerf. IE: rather than all the players having that ability, make it just one member out of the team like the salvager or vaultbuilder or even the rookie! If it wasn't for the large scale effect of those event cards I would have loved to play along.i think the event card should apply to the rookie, lol
Nothing. And that's what you all should have done. Instead, you decided to "boycott" an event. That could not be less mature or less productive (or less appropriate).Yeah, heaven forbid we try and make things fair.
Veil of X: are borderlines. I can see some cries of foul if this was sprung on someone by surprise when the team either didn't pick, or had already had discarded cards from those elements. Do all elements have a decent synergy with at least one of those elements?I'd say Veils are a bit behind the borderline, as they are indeed affected by different elements' synergies and vaults. These events would for example punish teams that did not take cards from certain elements, so the existence of such an event series should be known before vault building to make it just. It's a simple matter of difference between 'oh well, you are unlucky because you have to take a mark of <something> even though you have no such cards' and 'you can strategically design your vault to take advantage of these events, or ignore them, your choice'
Sacrificial alter is nice, but I'm not sure how many people would use it. Could turn into a "rich get richer" situation if played late in the game, since the teams in the lead could afford to make use of it more than the teams just hanging on. Good idea, but perhaps could use a tweak or two. :)
I like Gift.
Players are in no position to take the rules into their own hands. And the "fairness" of an online card game doesn't merit extreme actions anyway.Nothing. And that's what you all should have done. Instead, you decided to "boycott" an event. That could not be less mature or less productive (or less appropriate).Yeah, heaven forbid we try and make things fair.
I still don't see what's so terrible about playing the way that we want. If no one wants to play with the Age cards, we all boycott them. What's the problem?Players are in no position to take the rules into their own hands. And the "fairness" of an online card game doesn't merit extreme actions anyway.Nothing. And that's what you all should have done. Instead, you decided to "boycott" an event. That could not be less mature or less productive (or less appropriate).Yeah, heaven forbid we try and make things fair.
It's not heaven that forbids a boycott: it's propriety and/or maturity.
The purpose of the boycott was simple. If enough people didn't like the bonus, they'd ignore it. Ignoring a bonus was within the rules of the game. The boycotters felt that they'd rather take their chances on INTENTIONALLY taking an potential DISADVANTAGE in this round rather than participate in an event that could cause MORE drama than we have now. A 'lesser of two evils' approach. Or perhaps more along the lines of 'civil disobedience'A rather loud civil disobedience :))
Well civil disobedience is loud almost by definition. :PThe purpose of the boycott was simple. If enough people didn't like the bonus, they'd ignore it. Ignoring a bonus was within the rules of the game. The boycotters felt that they'd rather take their chances on INTENTIONALLY taking an potential DISADVANTAGE in this round rather than participate in an event that could cause MORE drama than we have now. A 'lesser of two evils' approach. Or perhaps more along the lines of 'civil disobedience'A rather loud civil disobedience :))
It's not heaven that forbids a boycott: it's propriety and/or maturity.???
The name calling is really too much. Who's being childish now?The purpose of the boycott was simple. If enough people didn't like the bonus, they'd ignore it. Ignoring a bonus was within the rules of the game. The boycotters felt that they'd rather take their chances on INTENTIONALLY taking an potential DISADVANTAGE in this round rather than participate in an event that could cause MORE drama than we have now. A 'lesser of two evils' approach. Or perhaps more along the lines of 'civil disobedience'So let me get this straight.
You were so concerned about an event card that would at most cost your team one or two matches in this particular round of a virtual online card game's community event that you felt the need to start a boycott; and now in its defense you want to bring metaphors of civil rights campaigns, creating a parallel between racial segregation and kids who would rather force a "do-over" than be challenged.
Your delusional concepts of self-righteousness aside, at very least you should have had the maturity to handle this by at least attempting some kind of discussion before literally throwing the hundreds of hours of work of the organizers by the wayside and deciding you were going to play the game by your own rules. It is not particularly complicated to observe the basic tenets of forum propriety, yet you not only failed to do so but are now also trying to defend your actions with irrelevant and inapplicable connections to real-world concepts of oppression.
1) It is not your place to decide that a rule decided upon by the organizers is "unacceptable."Why not? We're part of the community too. Doesn't our opinion matter?
2) You have no recourse that is "within the rules." What you incited was quite outside of the rules. In normal circumstances you would be banned from the event. Understandably so.Deciding as a group to ignore the event cards is perfectly well within the rules. Show me where in the rules it says that it isn't.
3) Your feeling that the event is somehow "unfair" is actually less important than continuing to act in an appropriate fashion. Stirring up "rebellion" of any kind is not the latter at all in any context.Our decision to ignore the event cards is acceptable, so this point is irrelevant.
4) This has nothing to do with civil rights and there is no righteousness on your side. Only self-importance and disrespect for the organizers. You are not a member of an oppressed mass; you are a gamer who is given the privilege of many hours of someone else's time to be here in this event. Rather than oppressing you, the organizers here actively engage the community for its input -- not because they have to but because they want to give as much to the community as they can. You are not fighting for something "greater." You are not Gandhi, you are not Rosa Parks. You are a kid playing an internet game. And all you are doing is screwing up a community event.The only difference is a vast one in scale. And if the community thinks that the event card screws up the community event, doesn't that matter?
A word of advice / a reminder before you proceed any further:The purpose of the boycott was simple. If enough people didn't like the bonus, they'd ignore it. Ignoring a bonus was within the rules of the game. The boycotters felt that they'd rather take their chances on INTENTIONALLY taking an potential DISADVANTAGE in this round rather than participate in an event that could cause MORE drama than we have now. A 'lesser of two evils' approach. Or perhaps more along the lines of 'civil disobedience'So let me get this straight.
You were so concerned about an event card that would at most cost your team one or two matches in this particular round of a virtual online card game's community event that you felt the need to start a boycott; and now in its defense you want to bring metaphors of civil rights campaigns, creating a parallel between racial segregation and kids who would rather force a "do-over" than be challenged.
Your delusional concepts of self-righteousness aside, at very least you should have had the maturity to handle this by at least attempting some kind of discussion before literally throwing the hundreds of hours of work of the organizers by the wayside and deciding you were going to play the game by your own rules. It is not particularly complicated to observe the basic tenets of forum propriety, yet you not only failed to do so but are now also trying to defend your actions with irrelevant and inapplicable connections to real-world concepts of oppression.
You need to realize that this is an online community for a video game. Therefore:
1) It is not your place to decide that a rule decided upon by the organizers is "unacceptable."
2) You have no recourse that is "within the rules." What you incited was quite outside of the rules. In normal circumstances you would be banned from the event. Understandably so.
3) Your feeling that the event is somehow "unfair" is actually less important than continuing to act in an appropriate fashion. Stirring up "rebellion" of any kind is not the latter at all in any context.
4) This has nothing to do with civil rights and there is no righteousness on your side. Only self-importance and disrespect for the organizers. You are not a member of an oppressed mass; you are a gamer who is given the privilege of many hours of someone else's time to be here in this event. Rather than oppressing you, the organizers here actively engage the community for its input -- not because they have to but because they want to give as much to the community as they can. You are not fighting for something "greater." You are not Gandhi, you are not Rosa Parks. You are a kid playing an internet game. And all you are doing is screwing up a community event.
I will accept the fact that you (Sir Valimont) believe me immature. I just did what i felt was right ethically.This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.
Just my two cents: again, a great set of rules and ideas that fell victim to a failure to understand the difference between "fair" and "balanced".I think different people define "just" and "balanced" in different ways.
Instead you incited a rebellion.Please, change your definition of rebellion.
These two sentences are related:So now you're dumping on his system of ethics too? Perhaps his system demands that he speak up when something isn't fair. And there is absolutely no debate on the event card being unbalanced.I will accept the fact that you (Sir Valimont) believe me immature. I just did what i felt was right ethically.This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.
So now you're dumping on his system of ethics too? Perhaps his system demands that he speak up when something isn't fair. And there is absolutely no debate on the event card being unbalanced.No of course I'm not questioning MrBlonde's ethics. I don't think "ethics" come into play at all. It's just silliness to use words like that at all. This is a game. A card gives one team an advantage. How is that "ethical" or "unethical" ?
These two sentences are related:what would the world be without rebelion? it would NEVER change. would you like to have a very high chance of being a slave or a pauper?I will accept the fact that you (Sir Valimont) believe me immature. I just did what i felt was right ethically.This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.
This is not a matter of ethics, not even slightly. It's a matter of (possibly) a game mechanic that's unbalanced. If that's the case then there are appropriate ways to handle the situation, the default which is to play on and go back and address the issues afterwards. Instead you incited a rebellion.If you believe i incited a rebellion that's your right. I'm not going to argue with you on this about semantics or use any grand analogies. I did what i thought was right. I simply let everyone know what my team was going to do because i did not think the event card was fair.
Yes of course it matters! A lot actually because this is a fairly new game that's still undergoing major development!Quote1) It is not your place to decide that a rule decided upon by the organizers is "unacceptable."Why not? We're part of the community too. Doesn't our opinion matter?
There is no law in America that says I can't eat my neighbor's car. But if I did eat my neighbor's car I would be arrested.Quote2) You have no recourse that is "within the rules." What you incited was quite outside of the rules. In normal circumstances you would be banned from the event. Understandably so.Deciding as a group to ignore the event cards is perfectly well within the rules. Show me where in the rules it says that it isn't.
Again, you could ignore what you want, that is your decision. However, organizing a boycott is not acceptable at all. By definition! A boycott can only happen if it's illegal!Quote3) Your feeling that the event is somehow "unfair" is actually less important than continuing to act in an appropriate fashion. Stirring up "rebellion" of any kind is not the latter at all in any context.Our decision to ignore the event cards is acceptable, so this point is irrelevant.
There is a major difference that has nothing to do with scale. The concerns of the civil rights movement have to do with human rights, decency and fairness. The concerns of whether or not an event card is balanced in Elements War has nothing to do with human rights, decency or fairness. It is not "unfair" for a card to be unbalanced. It is within the rules of the game. Something "unfair" would be outside of the rules of the game, like that the winner of a battle has to pay SG $10 or something.Quote4) This has nothing to do with civil rights and there is no righteousness on your side. Only self-importance and disrespect for the organizers. You are not a member of an oppressed mass; you are a gamer who is given the privilege of many hours of someone else's time to be here in this event. Rather than oppressing you, the organizers here actively engage the community for its input -- not because they have to but because they want to give as much to the community as they can. You are not fighting for something "greater." You are not Gandhi, you are not Rosa Parks. You are a kid playing an internet game. And all you are doing is screwing up a community event.The only difference is a vast one in scale. And if the community thinks that the event card screws up the community event, doesn't that matter?
Let me give you an example of a another event card that would be unfair if it were instituted and would receive an even bigger backlash.
Will of the Gods- This round the victor of all matches is determined by a coin flip.
I did not threaten to quit. I did not tell anyone to follow my lead.These are completely moot points. The fact that you posted your decision could only possibly lead to others following suit. Actions often speak louder than words.
Again, you could ignore what you want, that is your decision. However, organizing a boycott is not acceptable at all. By definition! A boycott can only happen if it's illegal!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott#Legality
Lol. Touché. :)Again, you could ignore what you want, that is your decision. However, organizing a boycott is not acceptable at all. By definition! A boycott can only happen if it's illegal!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott#Legality
But that doesn't mean that you have the right to ignore rules just because you don't like them. When you sign up to play a game, you sign up to follow the rules. There was never any guarantee that event cards would be perfectly balanced. If you feel like that card was so incredibly unbalanced that you don't want to play anymore, then that's your choice, but disrupting the game for everyone else is not a choice that you have and in doing so you are breaking the agreement you made to follow the rules of the game.It's literally impossible for one person to disrupt the game. If no one else had cared, there would have been no change in the rules. MrBlonde simply happens to be the FIRST person to say something about it, but the fact that dozens of people backed him up indicates that the "boycott" wasn't so much organized as it was a natural extension of the community's collective desire to play a balanced game.
I don't mean to accuse you of acting out of anything besides good conscience. I just think you could have used better judgement and realized that this situation was better left unchallenged in the public and aggressive way that you did. Now the result is no event cards at all. A much better result could have been reached.I already addressed those points in earlier posts.
Nobody ever said they wouldn't play. We were just agreeing that we would ignore the unbalanced event cards.Yes of course it matters! A lot actually because this is a fairly new game that's still undergoing major development!Quote1) It is not your place to decide that a rule decided upon by the organizers is "unacceptable."Why not? We're part of the community too. Doesn't our opinion matter?
But that doesn't mean that you have the right to ignore rules just because you don't like them. When you sign up to play a game, you sign up to follow the rules. There was never any guarantee that event cards would be perfectly balanced. If you feel like that card was so incredibly unbalanced that you don't want to play anymore, then that's your choice, but disrupting the game for everyone else is not a choice that you have and in doing so you are breaking the agreement you made to follow the rules of the game.
Actually, that would be theft and there are laws against that.There is no law in America that says I can't eat my neighbor's car. But if I did eat my neighbor's car I would be arrested.Quote2) You have no recourse that is "within the rules." What you incited was quite outside of the rules. In normal circumstances you would be banned from the event. Understandably so.Deciding as a group to ignore the event cards is perfectly well within the rules. Show me where in the rules it says that it isn't.
Some rules are understood. There is no rule against you deciding not to take an advantage. If you wanted to build a deck with no upped cards, that's totally fine. However, when you start organizing a boycott that involves a single other player, or when you advertise that you are not going to use upped cards as an attempt to convince others to do so, you are breaking the rules. Specifically you are breaking the obvious (even if not written) rule that event cards are meant to have an effect on the game. Think about it this way: If you tried to convince every Elements player not to use Otyughs, you would be breaking the rules. Maybe it's a "rule of conduct" but it's a rule nonetheless, and it's a good enough reason to kick you out of the community in most cases.I would not be breaking the rules if I told everyone not to use Otyughs if I thought they were unbalanced. It's just that everyone would laugh at me then ignore me.
Xinef covered this one.Again, you could ignore what you want, that is your decision. However, organizing a boycott is not acceptable at all. By definition! A boycott can only happen if it's illegal!Quote3) Your feeling that the event is somehow "unfair" is actually less important than continuing to act in an appropriate fashion. Stirring up "rebellion" of any kind is not the latter at all in any context.Our decision to ignore the event cards is acceptable, so this point is irrelevant.
It is unfair for a card to be unbalanced, at least to this extent.There is a major difference that has nothing to do with scale. The concerns of the civil rights movement have to do with human rights, decency and fairness. The concerns of whether or not an event card is balanced in Elements War has nothing to do with human rights, decency or fairness. It is not "unfair" for a card to be unbalanced. It is within the rules of the game. Something "unfair" would be outside of the rules of the game, like that the winner of a battle has to pay SG $10 or something.Quote4) This has nothing to do with civil rights and there is no righteousness on your side. Only self-importance and disrespect for the organizers. You are not a member of an oppressed mass; you are a gamer who is given the privilege of many hours of someone else's time to be here in this event. Rather than oppressing you, the organizers here actively engage the community for its input -- not because they have to but because they want to give as much to the community as they can. You are not fighting for something "greater." You are not Gandhi, you are not Rosa Parks. You are a kid playing an internet game. And all you are doing is screwing up a community event.The only difference is a vast one in scale. And if the community thinks that the event card screws up the community event, doesn't that matter?
Let me give you an example of a another event card that would be unfair if it were instituted and would receive an even bigger backlash.
Will of the Gods- This round the victor of all matches is determined by a coin flip.
MrBlonde simply happens to be the FIRST person to say something about it, but the fact that dozens of people backed him up indicates that the "boycott" wasn't so much organized as it was a natural extension of the community's collective desire to play a balanced game.While I have no doubt that others had problems with it, your view expressed above is overly simplistic.
I can tell you that if no one else had said anything before I got online today (busy watching the Rally to Restore Sanity) ...That's where I was today. :P
How would people feel about the Age cards if they were tweaked a bit? Something along the lines of "Everyone can use 3 upped light cards."
This still has a similar feel to the original Age cards, without being gamebreakingly unbalanced. Here people could use it if they wanted, but the disadvantage for not using it is minor.
Edit: As long as we're listing the cards that give an advantage to specific teams over others, Burst of Color is pretty dang biased towards team underworld.
Not really. There were 5 pages worth of people that all generally disliked the card before MrBlonde said anything.MrBlonde simply happens to be the FIRST person to say something about it, but the fact that dozens of people backed him up indicates that the "boycott" wasn't so much organized as it was a natural extension of the community's collective desire to play a balanced game.While I have no doubt that others had problems with it, your view expressed above is overly simplistic.
MrBlonde absolutely was not the first person to "say something about it" -- he was a team leader who committed 9 people to a boycott. There is a huge difference.That's his choice as death master. As master he has the power to speak for his team.
The collective desire of the community should have materialized in a discussion rather than brash actions. That is the crux of every post I've made on the issue.We saw the result of the discussion. The response was overwhelmingly negative.
Something like:That sounds good to me.
Age of Light -- Players who win a game using a :lightmark may salvage an additional 3 cards. Players who lose a game using a :lightmark discard 3 fewer cards.
That way, you have to balance the fact that everyone will predict you will play whatever :light -related strategy you can versus the fact that playing to counter that strategy will actually be more likely to win you the game. It gives the flavor of an Age of Light while providing a relatively balanced and interesting mechanic.
Ok I promised myself that I wouldn't post on this topic anymore but THIS is a good idea.QuoteHow would people feel about the Age cards if they were tweaked a bit? Something along the lines of "Everyone can use 3 upped light cards."
This still has a similar feel to the original Age cards, without being gamebreakingly unbalanced. Here people could use it if they wanted, but the disadvantage for not using it is minor.
Edit: As long as we're listing the cards that give an advantage to specific teams over others, Burst of Color is pretty dang biased towards team underworld.
I'd be much happier if it didn't arbitrarily punish people because their Element happens to not synergize well with light (i.e. they have no Light cards in the vault.)
Something like:
Age of Light -- Players who win a game using a :lightmark may salvage an additional 3 cards. Players who lose a game using a :lightmark discard 3 fewer cards.
That way, you have to balance the fact that everyone will predict you will play whatever :light -related strategy you can versus the fact that playing to counter that strategy will actually be more likely to win you the game. It gives the flavor of an Age of Light while providing a relatively balanced and interesting mechanic.
That way, you have to balance the fact that everyone will predict you will play whatever :light -related strategy you can versus the fact that playing to counter that strategy will actually be more likely to win you the game. It gives the flavor of an Age of Light while providing a relatively balanced and interesting mechanic.I think your idea has potential but I think the bonuses should be drastically changed. To me an interesting game mechanic is one that matters; 3 cards here and there doesn't matter that much. Make it a bonus of 12 cards for victory or discarding 0 cards on a loss. Now we're talking. :)
The whole reason people had a problem with the original card was how ridiculously biased it was towards light. Your version makes that a problem again, especially the 0 cards on a loss.That way, you have to balance the fact that everyone will predict you will play whatever :light -related strategy you can versus the fact that playing to counter that strategy will actually be more likely to win you the game. It gives the flavor of an Age of Light while providing a relatively balanced and interesting mechanic.I think your idea has potential but I think the bonuses should be drastically changed. To me an interesting game mechanic is one that matters; 3 cards here and there doesn't matter that much. Make it a bonus of 12 cards for victory or discarding 0 cards on a loss. Now we're talking. :)
Event Cards (removed from the event)This is why we can't have nice things.
I thought that these cards were a good idea; they provided an opportunity for each element to create decks they otherwise not think of.But some teams might not have brought any light cards. So they're at a disadvantage because of something they had no control over and they wouldn't build anything new.
SG already expressed his sentiment about the whole issueUh. ScaredGIRL.
It's simply not fair that light, round 2, gets it's cards upgraded, when a war normally only lasts 8 or so rounds. Most elements would never get to see their "age".Even better: if the cards were going to be used in the order they were shown, Darkness would have to wait until round 24 to see their "age."
3) Those "age of" cards need to be called "last stand" cards. They should be restricted to elements that are about to lose. (I think this was the original intent, but it wasn't clear)There's still some issue as to what you do if 2 teams are both about to lose. At that point you could double it up I suppose.
Yeah, at that point, make it a generic (i.e. Element-free) event card.I'd be careful before I'd say that it had received acceptance. It was mostly just some of us in this thread that thought that. We can't really speak for everyone.
Last Stand
All teams with less than 60 cards in their vault may use up to 12 additional upgraded cards in their decks.
Like that.
On a side note, now that SG has politely removed herself from the War and put everything in the hands of the WarMasters:
Can we put the Event cards back? We have one idea for the Age Of cards that seems to have some decent acceptance, so you don't even have to change the graphics or names, just the text and "shuffle the deck". We should probably either alter or remove the Veils, though.
On a side note, now that SG has politely removed herself from the War and put everything in the hands of the WarMasters:This is the kind of discussion we should be having after the event.
Can we put the Event cards back? We have one idea for the Age Of cards that seems to have some decent acceptance, so you don't even have to change the graphics or names, just the text and "shuffle the deck". We should probably either alter or remove the Veils, though.
I guess the best thing we could do now is to either design ~24 event card ideas that are not biased, or (if we want to keep event cards secret) at least organize a group of people who would design them. If I'm right, these event cards were designed by only Scaredgirl and the warmasters... I guess a bigger group would be necessary to spot and discuss fairness and balance.The problem with this is that you don't see these people who are vocal here, stepping up when I asked for ideas for Event Cards. You don't see them stepping up when we looked for new Warmasters. Why? Because they don't want to spend their time doing volunteer work, they only want the fruit of other peoples labor because they feel they are somehow entitled to it.
I apologize for not contributing to the event cards, I didn't see when this was taking place and so I didn't contribute.I guess the best thing we could do now is to either design ~24 event card ideas that are not biased, or (if we want to keep event cards secret) at least organize a group of people who would design them. If I'm right, these event cards were designed by only Scaredgirl and the warmasters... I guess a bigger group would be necessary to spot and discuss fairness and balance.The problem with this is that you don't see these people who are vocal here, stepping up when I asked for ideas for Event Cards. You don't see them stepping up when we looked for new Warmasters. Why? Because they don't want to spend their time doing volunteer work, they only want the fruit of other peoples labor because they feel they are somehow entitled to it.
It's very easy to just do your own thing and get a ready-made event handed to you on a silver platter, then deciding to sabotage it because you don't like the rules. But doing something productive by actually spending those countless hours in building these events as a volunteer, that's the hard part. The latter is something you won't see our resident complainers do. Ever.
For me personally, yesterday was the saddest day in the history of this community. Not because people didn't like the new Event Card, because those can always be fixed, but because of the highly disrespectful and wrong way many players decided to act on it. It was quite an eye-opener to me actually. In a matter of hours, I went from being very excited about War #2, to not even caring anymore, which is pretty sad.I'm sorry but I still can't see what's so wrong with deciding as a group not to use the Age cards.
I only hope that at some point, players would realize that having these kinds of Event Cards, while not particularly balanced because there is a luck element involved, would have made the event more fun by completely changing deckbuilding strategies for that round. The "Age" card of your element didn't get drawn? So what? It's the same principle of what happens when you lose because of a bad opening hand. Should we also change War rules so that if one person wins two coin tosses in a row, the latter match gets restarted? After all, that would be more fair, right?There's some amount of luck that's acceptable and some that is excessive. For example consider this event card:
Will of the Gods- This round the victor of all matches is determined by a coin flip.In theory, it's fair because it applies to everyone equally. But it's obviously far too luck driven.
People take games seriously and concentrate way too much on winning rather than the event being fun. Winning is of course important, but I don't think it means all events have to be like chess just to make sure that some players don't lose sleep over the event being "unfair". I think random events add spice to the event and help to turn the tides.I don't think it's unreasonable that people want the event they've committed to for the next several months to be fair.
There seems to always be a lot of drama involved in these big events, which is why I'm starting to think that we should just get rid of them all, and only do tournaments and league. For example, WoE is another big project I'm currently working on, and I don't really want to waste hundreds on hours on it, only to just new see boycotts because players feel some rule is "unfair" in this luck based card game of ours.I would like to point out again that nobody was going to drop out of the war. It sucks to lose the time that you put into the event cards, but nobody was going to quit.
I don't think that is true, I think the majority of people wanted to fight in the war, which means they can't be a warmaster, as you have to chose: you are either a warmaster, or you can participate, not both. And, about the event cards, there are people who have made some of the cards, but weren't warmasters: in chat Azumi asked for more event cards, because he was out of inspiration, and I came up with the reinforcements card. I don't know about the others, because they were to be PM'd, but that is at least one card. Also, when taking a look in the original topic (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8467.0.html) you will find some more event card suggestions by me, and there have been more in that topic.I guess the best thing we could do now is to either design ~24 event card ideas that are not biased, or (if we want to keep event cards secret) at least organize a group of people who would design them. If I'm right, these event cards were designed by only Scaredgirl and the warmasters... I guess a bigger group would be necessary to spot and discuss fairness and balance.The problem with this is that you don't see these people who are vocal here, stepping up when I asked for ideas for Event Cards. You don't see them stepping up when we looked for new Warmasters. Why? Because they don't want to spend their time doing volunteer work, they only want the fruit of other peoples labor because they feel they are somehow entitled to it.
It's very easy to just do your own thing and get a ready-made event handed to you on a silver platter, then deciding to sabotage it because you don't like the rules. But doing something productive by actually spending those countless hours in building these events as a volunteer, that's the hard part. The latter is something you won't see our resident complainers do. Ever.Won't you think deciding to boycot a card isn't something productive, done by the complainers.
It's very For me personally, yesterday was the saddest day in the history of this community. Not because people didn't like the new Event Card, because those can always be fixed, but because of the highly disrespectful and wrong way many players decided to act on it. It was quite an eye-opener to me actually. In a matter of hours, I went from being very excited about War #2, to not even caring anymore, which is pretty sad.I actually do agree on that. I even admit I probably overreacted as well, so my apologies for that.
It's very I only hope that at some point, players would realize that having these kinds of Event Cards, while not particularly balanced because there is a luck element involved, would have made the event more fun by completely changing deckbuilding strategies for that round. The "Age" card of your element didn't get drawn? So what? It's the same principle of what happens when you lose because of a bad opening hand. Should we also change War rules so that if one person wins two coin tosses in a row, the latter match gets restarted? After all, that would be more fair, right?Well, I think the majority of people agree with me that there is already enough luck involved, as the war is already like rock-paper scissors, to quote Essences Signature:
"Water is one of the most versatile elements out there, no two decks are the same. Do I take jade shield and stop lances, or would that be pointless because he'll use speed poison?"Also, I don't mind about more challenging deckbuilding, as that is only more fun, but because the event cards were secret, deckbuilding on this was pretty hard, because most of the vaults were not made to be able to use all elements.
People take games seriously and concentrate way too much on winning rather than the event being fun. Winning is of course important, but I don't think it means all events have to be like chess just to make sure that some players don't lose sleep over the event being "unfair". I think random events add spice to the event and help to turn the tides.Of course, random events can be fun, but a game is more fun if it is fair. Nobody wants to participate in a tourney were half of the people, randomly selected at the start of the tournament, is allowed to use upgraded cards while the other half isn't.
There seems to always be a lot of drama involved in these big events, which is why I'm starting to think that we should just get rid of them all, and only do tournaments and league. For example, WoE is another big project I'm currently working on, and I don't really want to waste hundreds on hours on it, only to just new see boycotts because players feel some rule is "unfair" in this luck based card game of ours.Drama is something normal, but a lot of it can be solved by doing some good old beta testing, because that makes clear if there are some major flaws in the rules, so they can be solved before it all starts.
I apologize for not contributing to the event cards, I didn't see when this was taking place and so I didn't contribute.Here's the thread:
I support this idea, but you have to remember to make sure that these cards apply to EVERY element possible.While its always the organizer that sets up the event, I dont understand the need to force something that majority strongly dislikes. Especially when the event is played only for fun, ie there are no prizes involved.
...
So as long as these Event Cards don't indirectly favor certain elements (like the one you have in your post SG), then I'd say it's a fantastic concept.
I guess that explains why I didn't see it. It occurred when I was on my Elements hiatus.I apologize for not contributing to the event cards, I didn't see when this was taking place and so I didn't contribute.Here's the thread:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8467.0.html
And here's one quote from the thread:Well said.Quote from: KuroaitouI support this idea, but you have to remember to make sure that these cards apply to EVERY element possible.While its always the organizer that sets up the event, I dont understand the need to force something that majority strongly dislikes. Especially when the event is played only for fun, ie there are no prizes involved.
...
So as long as these Event Cards don't indirectly favor certain elements (like the one you have in your post SG), then I'd say it's a fantastic concept.
Before the event, other than that thread, there wasnt much talk about those Event cards really, as ideas were kept secret/private.
Before the whole drama started, practically everyone who was in the chat said the card should be changed/removed.
After that, there were practically 3 options:
1) Spend next months playing something you dont enjoy.
2) Quit
3) Voice your opinion trying to get it changed before the duels start.
Isnt #3 the only real option here? Quits WOULD ruin the event, and not having fun in something designed only to have fun is... absurd.
Issue is, everyone started to take all this personally, and both sides over reacted, which just means we're humans and care about this thingy enough to spend whole day on forum arguing about it.
The problem with this is that you don't see these people who are vocal here, stepping up when I asked for ideas for Event Cards. You don't see them stepping up when we looked for new Warmasters. Why? Because they don't want to spend their time doing volunteer work, they only want the fruit of other peoples labor because they feel they are somehow entitled to it.If I lose the next Trials, I'll apply for a Warmaster if that helps anyhow. For me it's not a simple matter of 'not wanting to spend time doing volunteer work' but rather 'I'm responsible for a number of things and I'm not going to devote my time to one more thing, or I'd have to spend less time on other things I'm responsible for'. I guess the amount of work involved in leading a team, and amount of work involved in organizing events exclude each other, so I couldn't be good at both at the same time. And if I'm not good at something, I prefer not to do it at all and let it be done by experienced and skilled people who have time to do so. Only when there are no such people and something needs to be done, I'll do it, but don't expect me to guess everything that needs to be done, and know who's going to do it and who's not.
One more reason why I didn't post my own ideas of Event Cards. I believed that people like Kuroaitou, who are active, understand people well, and have the skill and experience to predict peoples reactions, would take care of Event Cards. It seems I was right that there would be people expressing their concern about balance, and cards giving advantage to certain teams. I'm just surprised their voice didn't affect the final result.I apologize for not contributing to the event cards, I didn't see when this was taking place and so I didn't contribute.Here's the thread:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8467.0.html
And here's one quote from the thread:Quote from: KuroaitouI support this idea, but you have to remember to make sure that these cards apply to EVERY element possible.While its always the organizer that sets up the event, I dont understand the need to force something that majority strongly dislikes. Especially when the event is played only for fun, ie there are no prizes involved.
...
So as long as these Event Cards don't indirectly favor certain elements (like the one you have in your post SG), then I'd say it's a fantastic concept.
Before the event, other than that thread, there wasnt much talk about those Event cards really, as ideas were kept secret/private.
Before the whole drama started, practically everyone who was in the chat said the card should be changed/removed.
After that, there were practically 3 options:
1) Spend next months playing something you dont enjoy.
2) Quit
3) Voice your opinion trying to get it changed before the duels start.
Isnt #3 the only real option here? Quits WOULD ruin the event, and not having fun in something designed only to have fun is... absurd.
Issue is, everyone started to take all this personally, and both sides over reacted, which just means we're humans and care about this thingy enough to spend whole day on forum arguing about it.
okay so all of you can bash me on my next comment all you want, but just hear me out:I think I'm getting along with my 'opposition' quite well.
Even though we belong to different elements, why is it so impossible for us to just get along? I mean, is that really too much to ask?
And while I'm a bit sorry for my actions in suggesting the boycott in the first place, to a degree, it was somewhat necessary.To no degree whatsoever was this "necessary" or appropriate.
In most cases in real life when you take actions like you did, you forfeit your right to participate in the community at all. You should realize that.So are you saying i should forfeit my right to participate in this community? What are you trying to say and fight for at this point?
Playing devil's advocate for the sake of the community and future situations like this....That's a very good and valid question.
Given the teams had a limited amount of time to deck build, and how many felt the event card was OP, how else would the community have gone about affecting a change? If a system were to be in place, then future misunderstandings might be entirely avoided.
Of course I am not saying you should have your rights forfeit.In most cases in real life when you take actions like you did, you forfeit your right to participate in the community at all. You should realize that.So are you saying i should forfeit my right to participate in this community? What are you trying to say and fight for at this point?
In real world, yes Mr. Blonde probably would be removed. But the authority will have to think of ways to frame him to remove him, they can't just remove him without plausible reasons.What version of the real world are we talking about? Openly rejecting authority is legitimate grounds for removal in 99.9% of real world examples. No authority would ever be held to "come up with an excuse" for kicking someone out who incited a revolt.
In literally almost every other context on the planet if you do something like this -- flagrantly take action against the authority -- you will be removed.
I think you have to realize that this is just a video game. What I mean is that your "outrage" over an event that you think is unfair really cannot be compared to a civil-rights movement in real life.Could you please decide whether we can or we can not use real-lie analogies, oh mighty one? Or perhaps there is an Event Card in place so that only people for Event Cards can use real life analogies?
(...)open opposition != breaking roules or even the law.
Openly rejecting authority is legitimate grounds for removal in 99.9% of real world examples. No authority would ever be held to "come up with an excuse" for kicking someone out who incited a revolt.
Being a member of a community does not entitle you to break the community's rules if you feel necessary. Being a participant in an event does not entitle you to break the rules of the event if you feel necessary. In most cases in real life when you take actions like you did, you forfeit your right to participate in the community at all. You should realize that.and secondly, community's rules? say what
In any version of the real world where authorities obey their own rules. I know there are places where the authority breaks their own rules all the time, only citizens need to follow the rules, but I come from a country where the government follows its own rules so I thought it is pretty clear. And yes in my country, when people in the position of power needs to get rid of someone who did not break rules they come up with an excuse to do it, they can't just go to that person and tell him to get out. As citizens won't take that kindly.In real world, yes Mr. Blonde probably would be removed. But the authority will have to think of ways to frame him to remove him, they can't just remove him without plausible reasons.What version of the real world are we talking about? Openly rejecting authority is legitimate grounds for removal in 99.9% of real world examples. No authority would ever be held to "come up with an excuse" for kicking someone out who incited a revolt.
haha :)In literally almost every other context on the planet if you do something like this -- flagrantly take action against the authority -- you will be removed.I think you have to realize that this is just a video game. What I mean is that your "outrage" over an event that you think is unfair really cannot be compared to a civil-rights movement in real life.Could you please decide whether we can or we can not use real-life analogies, oh mighty one? Or perhaps there is an Event Card in place so that only people for Event Cards can use real life analogies?
now talking about kicking someone out of the community seems extreme to me.I would never advocate such a thing. However it is useful for people to realize how serious an offense it is to create a revolt.
p/s: still waiting approval on whether we can or cannot use real life analogiesI'd say we can't, but he can.
As for civil rights, it could not be less appropriate to talk about Rosa Parks when talking about Elements War event cards. I'm pretty sure if you think about it you will agree with this obvious view.The level of an example doesn't necessarily negate the point of the example. To say boycotting agasint an established aurthority is wrong is a statement, that in order to be accepted, must be applied to all examples it applies to. You saying that people boycotting in a game against a rule people felt was unbalanced is the same as saying Rosa Parks was wrong for boycotting an estblished rule by authority that blacks had to sit in an estblished area on a bus. Seperating the instances in both examples leaves the same result. You argue that it is wrong to boycott authority. We disagree.
I have no quarrel with you in particular xdude. I'm surprised that you have responded to my posts this way, but there's not much I can do about that. I will respond if you engage on this issue. If not, then not.p/s: still waiting approval on whether we can or cannot use real life analogiesI'd say we can't, but he can.
With this said, I want to start a boycott over this. Considering how oh-the-mighty-one is obviously always right, I choose not to use my right of arguing with him ever again. Unless oh-the-mighty-one considers that by doing this I broken the principles of democracy and I should get hanged 'cause he says so. Which is obviously OK.
Maybe I should be clearer.As for civil rights, it could not be less appropriate to talk about Rosa Parks when talking about Elements War event cards. I'm pretty sure if you think about it you will agree with this obvious view.The level of an example doesn't necessarily negate the point of the example. To say boycotting agasint an established aurthority is wrong is a statement, that in order to be accepted, must be applied to all examples it applies to. You saying that people boycotting in a game against a rule people felt was unbalanced is the same as saying Rosa Parks was wrong for boycotting an estblished rule by authority that blacks had to sit in an estblished area on a bus. Seperating the instances in both examples leaves the same result. You argue that it is wrong to boycott authority. We disagree.
Never has it been said that boycotting in contingent on human right violations. Having been involved in human right awareness and activities, I can assure you of that.Hmm ... well this is a really intelligent post. Interesting stuff about the nurses' boycott.
Great example of a boycott that had no human rights connection, but was in every way right. A local nurses union was close to a walkout of local hospitals because those with authority were essntially taking advantage of the need to have nurses. The nurses were left with the choice of continuing to get less pay than their worth and really bad working hours or boycott and strike. They boycotted and came close to a strike but settled at the last second. Point is, it is completely acceptible to boycott something if people feel it is worthty to boycott and does not need to be some earth shattering condition to do so.
And I didn't create the parallel with your stance and rosa Parks. Someone simply applied a very specific stance you took and compared it wih another situation with the exact parameters. The question now seems to be, at what point to do you, personally, allow people to boycott something, assuming you have the power and authority to do such a thing? In my opinion, the very nature of boycotting goes against authority and thus no one person can have a say in whether on not a boycott is valid. If a boycott doesn't have merit they generally fall apart on their own accord. But if it does have merit, change is a natural result and it's usually those that suffered a perceived loss from the change that usually speak out the most that a boycott was bad.
I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE :'( :'( :'(One of the more productive posts in this thread. Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it. What's done is done. From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.
Fantastic idea! Would it be too early to start a new thread with just that intent?I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE :'( :'( :'(One of the more productive posts in this thread. Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it. What's done is done. From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.
Fantastic idea! Would it be too early to start a new thread with just that intent?As ScaredGirl has already pointed out that discussion is not relevant until after War #2 (Essence already asked about it).
If you want to up your post count, go everywhere and post the letter A. It's more efficient and just as productive to the community! /sarcasmI simply post im bummed, i didnt bitch about it and express a great deal of concern, but thats no reason for you to a freaking douche bag. im simply upping my post count.I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE :'( :'( :'(One of the more productive posts in this thread. Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it. What's done is done. From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.
DO YOU HAVE TO WORK AT BEING ASSHAT OR DOES IT COME NATURAL??
Boycotting authority is only right if there is a significant, serious breach of human rights that is so severe that it is more important than the considerations of causing social unrest.
Exactly!I R SAD EVENT CARDS ARE GONE :'( :'( :'(One of the more productive posts in this thread. Lets take the question of whether the community acted right or not and shove it. What's done is done. From here, we should find out if and what event cards to use next war.
Valimont, have you actually read MrBlonde's post? Because it seems like you're objecting to something that never happened. MrBlonde didn't "boycott authority" -- he said his team (only) was going to NOT USE the effects of the Event card. That's not boycotting authority any more than it is for someone to tell the government that they're going to not use their income tax return because the tax money came from rich people who were taxed unfairly by the country's progressive taxation system. It's a statement, but it literally didn't interfere with a damn thing.You are trying to claim that the boycott of the event card was ok because it didn't take an advantage.
Just because the other thread was closed doesn't mean you should come here to start saying the same things all over again.agreed^
Just let it go. It's finished.
As for your parallel, for it to be appropriate you would have to replace a random person with a governor of a large state who publicly makes a statement that all citizens in his state would be refusing their income tax returns. The reason for his statement would obviously be to protest the system on some level. It also is against about a dozen federal laws and would be met with aggressive hostility, especially if it came without an organized and open exchange of ideas on the subject beforehand.I'd love for you to quote me a federal law that prevents anyone from spending their income tax returns however they'd like (including not spending it at all). And don't go off about the laws being against the governor telling the people how to spend their money, because MrBlonde, no matter what he said, couldn't have actually done anything to prevent his soldiers from following the rules of the card if they had stood up to him the same way that he stood up to SG.
What's bizarre about this situation is that you all don't seem to realize that this is just not the way any system works.No -- what's bizarre about this is that YOU haven't figured out that this is EXACTLY how THIS situation JUST WORKED. All of your grandstanding is impotent rage, because the thing your objecting to has already happened, and your words to the contrary don't change a damn thing.
You believe that outright striking against authority should somehow be the status quo -- or even on the table for that matter -- for handling situations?Abso-freaking-lutely.
You can't justify taking matters into your own hands in this situation because it's not justifiable.Ever read the United States of America's Declaration of Independence? How about the Constitution? There are two very well-known and powerful documents that pretty strictly disagree with you.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Why do you think ScaredGirl reacted the way she did? Because she's unreasonable? Because she's hot-headed? Because she was insulted that you didn't like her ideas?Not at all. SG reacted the way any sane person was -- she was disappointed that all the work she put in wasn't accepted well by the community. That's perfectly normal and predictable. In fact, she did an excellent job of handling the situation, all told: she listened to the community, altered the rules, and then got out of the way when she realized that she wasn't emotionally capable of dealing with the situation in a calm and rational manner. That's EXACTLY what she's supposed to do in this situation, and I've already privately applauded her for it.
I'd love for you to quote me a federal law that prevents anyone from spending their income tax returns however they'd like (including not spending it at all).The federal laws I was referring to prevent people from inciting public displays of dissent to a federal regulation. Which would come into play if a governor were to make an equivalent statement to my example.
I said this is not the way any system works. And this is not the way this system works either. What you have done is not an example of the system working. It is an example of ScaredGirl deciding to remove the event card because she is nice. Not because you were right to object to it.QuoteWhat's bizarre about this situation is that you all don't seem to realize that this is just not the way any system works.No -- what's bizarre about this is that YOU haven't figured out that this is EXACTLY how THIS situation JUST WORKED. All of your grandstanding is impotent rage, because the thing your objecting to has already happened, and your words to the contrary don't change a damn thing.
It says a lot about you as a person if you think that rebelling against authority is an appropriate response any time you disagree with it. Not a lot of complimentary things.QuoteYou believe that outright striking against authority should somehow be the status quo -- or even on the table for that matter -- for handling situations?Abso-freaking-lutely.
I wonder how many of the members of the Legislative authority in the US would agree with you that it's appropriate to invoke these documents when you don't like the rules in an online video game.QuoteYou can't justify taking matters into your own hands in this situation because it's not justifiable.Ever read the United States of America's Declaration of Independence? How about the Constitution? There are two very well-known and powerful documents that pretty strictly disagree with you.
In Elements, "These ends" (from the Declaration) are clear. We're all here to have FUN. And when the structure or rules of an event make things NOT FUN, we are all perfectly within our rights to take matters into our own hands, and alter or abolish the event.How delusional. I mean seriously -- you think if you're not having fun at a game it becomes your right to "take matters into your own hands?"
Why do you think ScaredGirl reacted the way she did? Because she's unreasonable? Because she's hot-headed? Because she was insulted that you didn't like her ideas?So you think that ScaredGirl was wrong to put up the event card and that you've been vindicated by her removal of event cards.Not at all. SG reacted the way any sane person was -- she was disappointed that all the work she put in wasn't accepted well by the community. That's perfectly normal and predictable. In fact, she did an excellent job of handling the situation, all told: she listened to the community, altered the rules, and then got out of the way when she realized that she wasn't emotionally capable of dealing with the situation in a calm and rational manner. That's EXACTLY what she's supposed to do in this situation, and I've already privately applauded her for it.
valimont, what are you trying to achieve by arguing? you call everybody immature, but it you were mature you would have stopped argueing by now. what exactly do you think will happen if you win? What is the point of continually arguing?If you'd like to question my maturity that's just fine.
just like a politician, when somebody asks a good question, you say, "any more questions?"valimont, what are you trying to achieve by arguing? you call everybody immature, but it you were mature you would have stopped argueing by now. what exactly do you think will happen if you win? What is the point of continually arguing?If you'd like to question my maturity that's just fine.
I will continue to respond to questions or counterpoints that anyone cares to make to my posts.
EDITED to add: QuantumT, that's both a good point and a great smiley. :) I have been thinking a bit about how to set up a deck for my next opponent -- who is Fire-based.
just like a politician, when somebody asks a good question, you say, "any more questions?"I strive to answer any and all questions directly ... actually that was my point.
Um... I assume you missed this?I wonder how many of the members of the Legislative authority in the US would agree with you that it's appropriate to invoke these documents when you don't like the rules in an online video game.QuoteYou can't justify taking matters into your own hands in this situation because it's not justifiable.Ever read the United States of America's Declaration of Independence? How about the Constitution? There are two very well-known and powerful documents that pretty strictly disagree with you.
If you believe your liberties as an American citizen apply in parallel here, you are wrong. This is a free-membership community which works exactly like a dictatorship and the only rights you have are the ones accorded to you. You might play football and believe that the NFL's rules against horse-collar tackles are extremely unfair against the defending team, but the Bill of Rights certainly has nothing to do with your "right" to boycott the rule whatsoever. Same thing with event cards in Elements War.In Elements, "These ends" (from the Declaration) are clear. We're all here to have FUN. And when the structure or rules of an event make things NOT FUN, we are all perfectly within our rights to take matters into our own hands, and alter or abolish the event.How delusional. I mean seriously -- you think if you're not having fun at a game it becomes your right to "take matters into your own hands?"
I realize that it's a bit of a stretch to say that these documents have authority here -- they don't -- but the notion that the communities collective actions are "not justifiable" is pretty much shot down when you stop and realize that the USA's Founding Fathers basically completely disagree with you on every conceivable level. Even if you don't like America, you do have to give us a little credit. :)He was using the Constitution and Declaration to make a counterpoint to something you said.
Guys at this point you've beaten the dead horse so much it's just a puddle on the ground. Also:LOL
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
Alt text: What do you what me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!
I move to have this thread locked... do I hear a second?Seconded.
I move to have this thread locked... do I hear a second?YES
Um... I assume you missed this?I didn't miss it.I realize that it's a bit of a stretch to say that these documents have authority here -- they don't -- but the notion that the communities collective actions are "not justifiable" is pretty much shot down when you stop and realize that the USA's Founding Fathers basically completely disagree with you on every conceivable level. Even if you don't like America, you do have to give us a little credit. :)
Just to clarify, said documents simply REFLECT the ideas, i.e. documents != ideas. The ideas can still apply EVEN THOUGH the constitution and declaration DON'T.Um... I assume you missed this?I didn't miss it.I realize that it's a bit of a stretch to say that these documents have authority here -- they don't -- but the notion that the communities collective actions are "not justifiable" is pretty much shot down when you stop and realize that the USA's Founding Fathers basically completely disagree with you on every conceivable level. Even if you don't like America, you do have to give us a little credit. :)
Essence says in one breath that those documents don't apply and yet in the next says that my views on the issue are at odds with the Founding Fathers. Well, since the views of the Founding Fathers don't apply, obviously my stance on the issue can't be at odds with their general beliefs.
It is clear from Essence's posts that he believes that whenever he disagrees with something that it is appropriate for him to rebel. Such a viewpoint is a non-starter. There's not much more I can say about it.
Just to clarify, said documents simply REFLECT the ideas, i.e. documents != ideas. The ideas can still apply EVEN THOUGH the constitution and declaration DON'T.You are quite right that ideas can apply in different situations. We could call those situations a matter of "principle."
Not at all. SG reacted the way any sane person was -- she was disappointed that all the work she put in wasn't accepted well by the community. That's perfectly normal and predictable. In fact, she did an excellent job of handling the situation, all told: she listened to the community, altered the rules, and then got out of the way when she realized that she wasn't emotionally capable of dealing with the situation in a calm and rational manner. That's EXACTLY what she's supposed to do in this situation, and I've already privately applauded her for it.I feel I need to clarify this thing a bit.
Age of Light could have been easily nerfed or even removed for the event. The card is not really the issue here.but in my opinion that is EXACTLY the issue here
Did you stop reading after that paragraph?Age of Light could have been easily nerfed or even removed for the event. The card is not really the issue here.but in my opinion that is EXACTLY the issue here
i believe nobody said the event cards idea as a whole is a failure
ask anybody after seeing 'Flawless Victory' and i think the response is "awesomesauce" or something similar
and i think we've seen similar responses to the initial idea (everyone can use 6 upgraded cards this round)
because, it felt like something powerful YET balance enough that it didnt tip the scale in favor of anyone
but then comes the Age of Light
that card...and the Age series in particular IS the issue
I third the topic lock motion (unless somebody already has and I missed it :)))Actually, it was seconded twice X3
But while it's not locked... I think that 1. The community overreacted(including me), and 2. Removing them entirely was a bit much. Having Event Cards was a great idea, it just needed 1 war for the idea to be refined, that's all.
Removing them entirely was a bit much.I don't think so. If I hadn't done it, here's what we would have had to do:
The other thread was locked because of the unacceptable amount of drama and internets grandstanding. Please don't make me do the same with this thread (and please don't shop arguments across threads once they are locked - topics are locked for a reason). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's keep the discussion sensible and mature otherwise it will have to end.In that light I would like to add suggestions how to balance these cards out.
Perhaps a more productive direction for this thread is Amilir's suggestion of discussing what Event Cards, if any, could be used for the next War based on our experiences with these.
A lot of discussion about Age of <element> was about only those having <element> cards would benifit from them and the rest would suffer. Here's my idea to balance it out for future use: for every one or two (or even three, whatever's more balanced) cards upgraded these way, the opponent can salvage an extra card if they win. That way if they have less upgrades the odds might be against them, but when they win, they win spectacular. This will make teams consider which cards are truly worth upgrading, rather than just upgrading it all since there's no downside.Good ideas.
Edit: I would like to add that two decks with a lot of upgrades facing eachother should not benifit from extra salvaging, so maybe let the amount of cards you can salvage be (opponents amount of cards upgraded through event card - your cards upgraded through event card) in which total amount salvaged cannot be negative.
The first and most relevant thing you're going to need to do is figure out who is going to run the next War at all; only then will a discussion of the mechanics of that War really matter. And in general this whole discussion won't really be useful until the current War is over anyway.ummm you do realize that after the auctions closed SG put up a 'suggestions for the next war' topic? You don't need to know who's running it so long as you know if it's going to happen, War 3 will most definitely happen. Unless something catastrophic happens, like the entire forums being deleted (but that probably won't happen anyway).
ummm you do realize that after the auctions closed SG put up a 'suggestions for the next war' topic?I was unaware. Can you provide a link? I can't find the thread you're talking about.
here it is I messed up the name a bit but the idea is the same Suggestions and Feedback (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,13708.0.html)Oh yes I know that one ... I thought you were talking about a thread that specifically came about after this event card thing. Definitely if someone has commentary about how to use event cards in the next war that would be the correct thread to put those comments in.
ummm you do realize that after the auctions closed SG put up a 'suggestions for the next war' topic?
Removing them entirely was a bit much.I don't think so. If I hadn't done it, here's what we would have had to do:
<snip>
That's absurd, and you know full well that you're overdramatizing. All you ever had to do wasIt is shocking that you think that as a participant in a free online game community that you are entitled to make statements like this about an event you did not set up or run. Shocking.
1) Pay attention to the suggestions given (because I know that at least one person SPECIFICALLY said 'no event cards that dramatically favor one element over another'.)
and
2) Publish the list of possible Event cards (but not what order they'd come out in) a few days before Round 1, and ask for feedback.
ScaredGirl did not ever have to get the approval of you or anyone else, and if she got your feedback at any point it was as a courtesy to you and to help her in her design process. It absolutely was not because she was bound by any contract, literal or implied, to make you happy.
You have no actual authority here, and thus your opinion is irrelevant to me and I will summarily ignore it. Have a nice day.If you are content to dismiss an argument not on its merit but on the status of its speaker, then that is your shortcoming and I can't help you past it.
In Elements, "These ends" (from the Declaration) are clear. We're all here to have FUN. And when the structure or rules of an event make things NOT FUN, we are all perfectly within our rights to take matters into our own hands, and alter or abolish the event.Similarly, if you are so self-centered that you think when you sign up to participate in a free event it becomes your right to take it over when you want the rules to change, that is also your shortcoming.
I really am completely impartial.That sentence kind of bothers me, I don't think anyone who is even slightly involved in the war can even be partially impartial. So far you seem to shove off all blame to the rest of the community like you blame the community to do, then again I am biased by being part of the community. You have (at the very least attempted) to make people think about the way they chose their words, but have you thought about yours? I find a lot of them insulting.
was the community wrong for asking for a change? because seems like it based on what SG/valimont saidYou still don't get it, huh? Asking for a change and posting feedback is not a problem, making your own rules is.
This is an idea I've talked about before. It uses the same mechanics found in many board games. The idea is that you draw one "Event Card" at the start of each round, and that card has some effect, positive or negative, that effects all the teams.
I support this idea, but you have to remember to make sure that these cards apply to EVERY element possible. For some elements, they either lack certain types of cards (mid-hitters, an arsenal of spells or permanents, rare cards, etc.) or lack cards in general (*hugs his imaginary :aether Icybraker plushie awkwardly*). So as long as these Event Cards don't indirectly favor certain elements (like the one you have in your post SG), then I'd say it's a fantastic concept. :)
and exactly how are we supposed to give feedback when...a) I already explained why the cards were kept a secret. Besides, feedback is usually given after something happens, in this case after the card is posted. Some people actually did this, but others chose a different path which is why we are in this situation. Had there been a civilized discussion about this, I'm sure that with slight changes, like nerfs, everything could have been fixed so that majority likes it. Some people would always be dissatisfied but this is the internet so that's nothing new.
a) we dont even know what kind of event cards ideas you've got that only you and 2 WMs discuss in private know
b) you put it up in R2 and swiftly remove it...before seeing it in action (which is a conundrum because you can say we made it go away)
but there was no place in time to give feedback other than the original event card idea thread and you completely ignore your own post and that of another personThose cards would have affected all teams. Nothing I say there contradicts what actually happened.QuoteThis is an idea I've talked about before. It uses the same mechanics found in many board games. The idea is that you draw one "Event Card" at the start of each round, and that card has some effect, positive or negative, that effects all the teams.QuoteI support this idea, but you have to remember to make sure that these cards apply to EVERY element possible. For some elements, they either lack certain types of cards (mid-hitters, an arsenal of spells or permanents, rare cards, etc.) or lack cards in general (*hugs his imaginary :aether Icybraker plushie awkwardly*). So as long as these Event Cards don't indirectly favor certain elements (like the one you have in your post SG), then I'd say it's a fantastic concept. :)
I think you are confusing "listening feedback" to "taking orders from a player". I did read this particular feedback but I chose not to follow it. I wanted to have the "featured element of the round" thing, which is why I went with "Age.." cards. As an organizer, I feel I should have a power to make those kinds of decisions. I still feel that the concept would have been perfect for War. Only question is, should it have been capped at 6 upped cards or something to make it less "unfair"?I believe it was already "fair"- all elements had an equal chance to get their age card drawn. However, it was (or seemed) "unbalanced" (whether or not it actually was, I do not know). Capping it at 3 or 6 cards (per player, perhaps) would, imo, have made it (seem) more balanced. (Alternatively, give a disadvantage, discard/salvage-wise, when facing a deck that has less upped cards or that doesn't use that element, though I think the cap would be easier)
Only question is, should it have been capped at 6 upped cards or something to make it less "unfair"?funny you should ask because i was going to post this in accordance to hyroen's effort (SOS Event Card)
| (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92181/light.png) | too "unfair", will cause drama |
| (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd101157/lightjr.png) | less unfair but tolerable, minor drama |
| (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd101156/equality.png) | best of all, no drama, "awesomesauce" |
I still feel that the concept would have been perfect for War.totally agree with that sentiment, 'event' can be seen as something that happens that affect the order
| (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd92181/light.png) | Boldest and most interesting option. Sure, not getting your card draw gives you a disadvantage, but so does everything else luck based like the coin toss at the beginning of a duel, or your opening hand. Instead of crying about unfairness, players should take it as a challenge and stop assuming that War is supposed to be like chess. Remember, everyone can use those cards. :light can use more than you? Get over it, it's a game. |
| (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd101157/lightjr.png) | Less bold version of the previous card, but could work because the "featured card of the round" aspect still exist. Probably the best compromise, and the number 6 always makes sense. |
| (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd101156/equality.png) | Boring and unimaginative. "Featured card of the round" aspect totally abandoned, which means round deckbuilding would see very small changes. If you want to see a card similar to this, you need to make 3 of these, one of each card type. So during one round you can use 6 upped creatures, then 6 permanents, then 6 spells. That would at least make some interesting changes to deckbuilding, instead of being a simple "everyone just take 6 random upped cards". |
You only won because you used the OP Event Card!!it would now be
You only won because you had the OP Event Card!!Is there really that much difference?
b) if I hadn't removed them, it would have led to a total disaster. Like I've said before, if some teams went with boycott and others didn't, how do you think it would have played out? If you don't take advantage of upped card when others do, the "unfairness" aspect of it would skyrocket. "You only won because you used the OP Event Card!!".I'd just like to point out, that this exact situation wouldve happened with or without the boycott due to teams not taking the required elements in their vault. Teams would have ended up not being able to use any/many of the upped cards, and wouldve complained even more than now due to losing from it. I actually think the event cards as they are could work, but only if teams knew they were coming beforehand (not the order, just that cards like that) and starting vault sizes were increased by an amount large enough to make fielding some cards from all 12 elements plausible.
b) if I hadn't removed them, it would have led to a total disaster. Like I've said before, if some teams went with boycott and others didn't, how do you think it would have played out? If you don't take advantage of upped card when others do, the "unfairness" aspect of it would skyrocket. "You only won because you used the OP Event Card!!".I'd just like to point out, that this exact situation wouldve happened with or without the boycott due to teams not taking the required elements in their vault.
Um... what happened to my "SOS: Event Cards" thread?I think it was merged with the "suggestions and feedback" thread.
Thanks Memorystick, not even the Warmaster knew the correct response to that question.General Discussion is for discussions that don't have a better place. Everything that doesn't have a forum section for it, is labeled as "general". Everything that does have a place for it, should be posted there.
Shouldn't have been merged, that thread had a specific and sole purpose: Event Cards. Now they're just generalized as suggestions? *sigh*
Why does this always happen?
Kudos to you thread-merger, destroyer of worlds.
WHAT?!?!?! You mean to tell me that general discussion isnt the only section on the forums? (/sarcasm :P)Thanks Memorystick, not even the Warmaster knew the correct response to that question.General Discussion is for discussions that don't have a better place. Everything that doesn't have a forum section for it, is labeled as "general". Everything that does have a place for it, should be posted there.
Shouldn't have been merged, that thread had a specific and sole purpose: Event Cards. Now they're just generalized as suggestions? *sigh*
Why does this always happen?
Kudos to you thread-merger, destroyer of worlds.
If you have feedback or suggestions about War, guess where you should post them? That's right, in the War Feedback and Suggestions topic.
This is how forums work.
It would seem to me like this is the place to do it, seeing as the thread is named "Event Cards" and all. ;)Um... as SG just said:
If you have feedback or suggestions about War, guess where you should post them? That's right, in the War Feedback and Suggestions topic.^^;;; - I mean, I know this topic says Event Cards, but if you guys want to provide a topic of having more 'fair' Event Cards, then that topic should be the best place to put it, don't you think?
This is how forums work.
Here's to hoping that regardless of what happens, we can put this drama behind us and continue War #2 as planned (I'd feel devastated if the entire War was canceled).Exactly, what the French government could say: "Stop complaining and Go to work!"
I think it was VERY unfair. Let's say in the final round it is Darkness agianst poor ole' (insert element here) Darkness wins. Sorry. No redos.You honestly think there will be 24 rounds in this war? I understand optimism, but let's be serious now. :P
...the tournament organiser broke the social contract first by deviating from expectations about how the event was going to be run.It is highly delusional to think that the organizer(s) of this free event deviated from any reasonable expectations. Whether that is because the expectations players had were themselves delusional, or whether it's because players thinking that when their expectations aren't met that gives them moral authority to "act like dicks," is somewhat moot.
It is highly delusional to think that the organizer(s) of this free event deviated from any reasonable expectations.The exact same information could be conveyed this way:
I think it is incorrect to think that the organizer(s) of this free event deviated from any reasonable expectations.Basically, personal attacks are incredibly counterproductive if you want anybody to actually listen to you.
Whether that is because the expectations players had were themselves delusional, or whether it's because players thinking that when their expectations aren't met that gives them moral authority to "act like dicks," is somewhat moot.Here, breaking those expectations broke the social contract. When we all signed up for the event, we expected certain things. We might not be paying any money, but we are draining a large portion of time into this. If you think the developers have no obligations to us, then I'm not sure why you think that we have any obligation to the event.
have no right whatsoever to dictate their opinions to me let alone control my creative endeavorsPerhaps. But you also have not right whatsoever to dictate your opinions to them. If they don't like your product, they have every right to just walk away. I'll note that nobody here even threatened to leave.
If you want us to commit our time to the event, then you have the obligation to make the event something we want to commit our time to. If you don't care if we participate, then you can do whatever you want
When it comes to customers, the reality is, if they don't like it, they can stop paying and go elsewhere. The payment they are making is voluntary and based on their own expectations. As long as I am not broadcasting expectations to the contrary -- like that I say I sell apples when I sell oranges -- they have no legal or ethical right to be upset if they don't like what they get.You just said that people are free to do what you accuse everyone of doing so wrongly. Also, NOONE has tried to dictate the rules. Thats probably the most irritating thing everyone keeps saying. We never said "You have to change this! bwaarg!" All anyone said was that we dont think its fair, so we (as in us, ourselves) are not going to use it. We never threatened anyone or tried to dictate the rules. We could have just said we're not going to participate to make it what you are saying in the above quote, but I dont think any of us wanted that because it would still be a fun event, and one worth spending our time, even if we had to go againt upgraded decks using unupgraded decks. There was no obligation to change the rules. Scaredgirl changed them to try to calm the community and prevent drama, but that doesnt mean we forced it.
The community did not choose one of the options of the event card. The community chose to abandon the event card. It does not matter what the event card said; it matters that the community decided to abandon it. You cannot abandon a rule -- that's the same thing as breaking it.When it comes to customers, the reality is, if they don't like it, they can stop paying and go elsewhere. The payment they are making is voluntary and based on their own expectations. As long as I am not broadcasting expectations to the contrary -- like that I say I sell apples when I sell oranges -- they have no legal or ethical right to be upset if they don't like what they get.You just said that people are free to do what you accuse everyone of doing so wrongly. Also, NOONE has tried to dictate the rules. Thats probably the most irritating thing everyone keeps saying. We never said "You have to change this! bwaarg!" All anyone said was that we dont think its fair, so we (as in us, ourselves) are not going to use it. We never threatened anyone or tried to dictate the rules. We could have just said we're not going to participate to make it what you are saying in the above quote, but I dont think any of us wanted that because it would still be a fun event, and one worth spending our time, even if we had to go againt upgraded decks using unupgraded decks. There was no obligation to change the rules. Scaredgirl changed them to try to calm the community and prevent drama, but that doesnt mean we forced it.
The community did not choose one of the options of the event card. The community chose to abandon the event card. It does not matter what the event card said; it matters that the community decided to abandon it. You cannot abandon a rule -- that's the same thing as breaking it.He absolutely can do that. It is entirely within the realm of free speech. This would be called "trying to influence public opinion." This is clearly acceptable under our current laws (I mean come on, did YOU see all of the political ads?).
In the United States, sometimes people make donations to charities. When an American citizen makes a donation of $1000 to certain charities, there is a law that says he is allowed to pay $1000 less dollars in taxes. Obviously donating to charity is an option, so if someone just pays the $1000 tax, that's fine.
Now: let's say an influential US citizen doesn't like the law. Well, he doesn't have to donate anything. He can make that choice. However, he ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT make a public speech about how he and all the employees in his company are not going to donate in such a way as to encourage other people in similar positions to also not donate.
Try to understand:It's a best a matter of opinion if they did this. In fact, it seems to me like Mr. Blonde actively encouraged other people to decide what they wanted to do for themselves.
1) Sometimes the government provides choices.
2) It is legal to make whatever choice you want.
3) It is illegal to stop the government from offering that same choice to everyone else.
4) Because of #3, it is illegal to create a situation where everyone is living in a context where there is no choice. The government has the authority to offer a choice -- so it is the government's "right" to have a society where everyone has the choices that they offer.
What this community did is the same thing as #4. Not #3, but #4.
I agree. Flaming teams that will use the upped cards or SG or the warmasters should not be done. Team Death will not be taking advantage of any of these "type" of event cards but fully do not expect others to follow suit.This certainly doesn't seem coercive to me.
No complaints, no whining will be forthcoming from our team.
Another analogy that might be easier to understand:Have you ever even SEEN political ads. This is exactly the way virtually all of them function.
If at your school you are allowed to vote for Mr. Smith or Mrs. Sanders as teacher of the week, then no one can argue if you vote for one person or the other. But if a group of "cool kids" decide that everyone should choose Mr. Smith, then if they intentionally create a situation where everyone is influenced to choose Mr. Smith -- like if they make a public announcement that that's what they are doing because of this and that reason that would be uncool to argue with -- then they have done something wrong. Why? Because they have taken away the authority of the school to enforce a decision-making process on the school's terms. It makes no difference if the cool kids are actually threatening to beat people up if they vote the wrong way or if they don't. The METHOD USED to change people's votes is irrelevant; the act of changing the context of choice-making is what matters.
So, in fact yes, dictating the rules is exactly what the community was trying to do. Well, in real life it is illegal when it comes to government statutes and it is grounds to get you fired if you do it inside of an organization. And these things are so basic and obvious to those of us who know about managing choices for people that it's actually difficult to explain. It just seems obvious.
I know it's the same for you: It just seems so obvious that you didn't break any rules. You made a choice that you were given and it seems ridiculous for someone to say you broke rules. What you are not seeing is that the rule you're breaking is not a written rule, but it is a basic rule of engagement, a basic understanding between participant and organizer: and those rules are just as important if not MORE important than rules within the event. If you break a rule in the event you can receive a penalty -- but if you become a person who refuses to uphold the basic relationship of organizer and participant, you make the event impossible.The same argument can easily be made in reverse.
basic rule of engagement, a basic understanding between participant and organizer: and those rules are just as important if not MORE important than rules within the event.There is a very distinct limit to how much you can do as an organizer and still reasonably expect people to be ok with. Let me try to explain this with another example.
First of all, as quantumt said, most of your examples arent actually illegal, and happen regularly, so I dont really see what you're getting at. Secondly, Mrblonde did nothing to get people to join. He even told us as a team "No need to let anyone know that we are boycotting these cards. No need to tell people, 'wow and we won even without using this event card' or 'we only lost because we didn't use the event card'". He just made one post to let people know we were doing it, and were perfectly happy to move on from there with nothing changing. I wont deny that we hoped it would change, because like I said we thought it was unfair, but we never went around trying to get people to join us so we could dictate our own rules because we're just so great and everything.The community did not choose one of the options of the event card. The community chose to abandon the event card. It does not matter what the event card said; it matters that the community decided to abandon it. You cannot abandon a rule -- that's the same thing as breaking it.When it comes to customers, the reality is, if they don't like it, they can stop paying and go elsewhere. The payment they are making is voluntary and based on their own expectations. As long as I am not broadcasting expectations to the contrary -- like that I say I sell apples when I sell oranges -- they have no legal or ethical right to be upset if they don't like what they get.You just said that people are free to do what you accuse everyone of doing so wrongly. Also, NOONE has tried to dictate the rules. Thats probably the most irritating thing everyone keeps saying. We never said "You have to change this! bwaarg!" All anyone said was that we dont think its fair, so we (as in us, ourselves) are not going to use it. We never threatened anyone or tried to dictate the rules. We could have just said we're not going to participate to make it what you are saying in the above quote, but I dont think any of us wanted that because it would still be a fun event, and one worth spending our time, even if we had to go againt upgraded decks using unupgraded decks. There was no obligation to change the rules. Scaredgirl changed them to try to calm the community and prevent drama, but that doesnt mean we forced it.
In the United States, sometimes people make donations to charities. When an American citizen makes a donation of $1000 to certain charities, there is a law that says he is allowed to pay $1000 less dollars in taxes. Obviously donating to charity is an option, so if someone just pays the $1000 tax, that's fine.
Now: let's say an influential US citizen doesn't like the law. Well, he doesn't have to donate anything. He can make that choice. However, he ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT make a public speech about how he and all the employees in his company are not going to donate in such a way as to encourage other people in similar positions to also not donate.
Try to understand:
1) Sometimes the government provides choices.
2) It is legal to make whatever choice you want.
3) It is illegal to stop the government from offering that same choice to everyone else.
4) Because of #3, it is illegal to create a situation where everyone is living in a context where there is no choice. The government has the authority to offer a choice -- so it is the government's "right" to have a society where everyone has the choices that they offer.
What this community did is the same thing as #4. Not #3, but #4.
Another analogy that might be easier to understand:
If at your school you are allowed to vote for Mr. Smith or Mrs. Sanders as teacher of the week, then no one can argue if you vote for one person or the other. But if a group of "cool kids" decide that everyone should choose Mr. Smith, then if they intentionally create a situation where everyone is influenced to choose Mr. Smith -- like if they make a public announcement that that's what they are doing because of this and that reason that would be uncool to argue with -- then they have done something wrong. Why? Because they have taken away the authority of the school to enforce a decision-making process on the school's terms. It makes no difference if the cool kids are actually threatening to beat people up if they vote the wrong way or if they don't. The METHOD USED to change people's votes is irrelevant; the act of changing the context of choice-making is what matters.
So, in fact yes, dictating the rules is exactly what the community was trying to do. Well, in real life it is illegal when it comes to government statutes and it is grounds to get you fired if you do it inside of an organization. And these things are so basic and obvious to those of us who know about managing choices for people that it's actually difficult to explain. It just seems obvious.
I know it's the same for you: It just seems so obvious that you didn't break any rules. You made a choice that you were given and it seems ridiculous for someone to say you broke rules. What you are not seeing is that the rule you're breaking is not a written rule, but it is a basic rule of engagement, a basic understanding between participant and organizer: and those rules are just as important if not MORE important than rules within the event. If you break a rule in the event you can receive a penalty -- but if you become a person who refuses to uphold the basic relationship of organizer and participant, you make the event impossible.
That is the problem and that is why you see the posts ScaredGirl and I have made.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Mrblonde did nothing to get people to join.Not to be rude Nume, but this is naïve.
Well I don't know what to tell you except that in my example of the corporation talking about tax reductions, it is quite plainly illegal and your suppositions to the contrary are just wrong.Good thing you're wrong, otherwise things like the civil rights movement would have been illegal.
Secondly, you miss the point when you cite examples of things ScaredGirl could have done that would be egregious. The fact is that her "Age" cards were not egregious at all. They were completely within the realm of normal, to-be-expected possibilities. The only argument was whether or not they were balanced. Your example was of something unfair, not unbalanced. Of course doing something unfair would be a breach by ScaredGirl. Of course doing something unbalanced is not a breach.Are you serious? The huge backlash itself is clear evidence that cards like the Age ones were not expected.
Last, I never mentioned MrBlonde by name and I believe that he is one of the only people involved in this entire incident who both apologized and accepted blame. That sort of attitude from others would help the situation. But more relevantly: This is a question of intentions. The intention was never to "encourage people to make a decision" based on the event card. Making a decision based on the event card would be considering whether or not it was a good idea to use this card upped or this card unupped, or build this deck because it took advantage of these upped cards, etc, etc, etc. The intention was to encourage people to make a decision about whether or not they would use the event card at all, which means a decision about whether or not the card was fair. That is a different decision -- and based on an unacceptable assumption to be made by a participant in the event. It is both wrong to call the card unfair -- which is not the same thing as unbalanced -- and it is wrong to attempt to dictate the acceptance of the event card.Of course the intent is to sway public opinion. That's ALWAYS the point of civil disobedience.
The Age of Light card was not unfair. Whether it was unbalanced is irrelevant. But it was not unfair. And the actions undertaken are only acceptable when something is unfair.I'm not sure how you're using these words at this point, so I can't really respond.
I absolutely am allowed to make that statement. If people aren't allowed to make these kinds of statements, then you have ABSOLUTELY no right to expect them to continue to participate.Mrblonde did nothing to get people to join.Not to be rude Nume, but this is naïve.
People don't have to say "do this" to be telling someone to do something. When you are a team leader and you say "my team is not using this card because this card is unfair," you are most definitely inciting other team leaders to do the same thing. And please don't start quoting him and telling me that he never said the card was unfair. Of course that is exactly what was implied.
Ask MrBlonde yourself and he will tell you that yes, getting other people to do the same thing is exactly the effect of a statement like that. Whether he meant it that way or not, that is what it is. And it's not complicated or difficult to see why.
Why did people make these statements? The reason is obvious, you know it and I know it ... we all know it.
The reason was to say: This card is unacceptable. <--- That statement, which all of you were making, is the problem. It is a false statement which you are NOT ALLOWED to make. By making it and making decisions based on it, you broke the rules.
Good thing you're wrong, otherwise things like the civil rights movement would have been illegal.The civil rights movement was completely and utterly illegal. It wouldn't be a movement if it wasn't.
Are you serious? The huge backlash itself is clear evidence that cards like the Age ones were not expected.There was no part of the Age cards which was outside of the obvious realm of possibility.
Also with the age cards in play, dice throwing was almost literally what was occurring. Here are some different "rolls"Even if the statistics were identical to that your point is invalid. Rolling a die has nothing to do with the understanding of event cards or the more basic rules of Elements War. Event cards have exactly to do with that understanding, whether they are affecting salvage amounts, discard amounts or upgraded cards usable in decks. The two things -- event cards and die rolling -- can't be compared. One is within the rules of the game, the other is not. One is therefore fair and the other is not.
Of course the intent is to sway public opinion. That's ALWAYS the point of civil disobedience.Civil disobedience ... just read the title. It's completely against the rules of the authority. The term itself makes no sense unless it is illegal.
I absolutely am allowed to make that statement. If people aren't allowed to make these kinds of statements, then you have ABSOLUTELY no right to expect them to continue to participate.You are absolutely 100% wrong.
I'll say it again to emphasize it, if you completely ignore what the participants want, you have no right whatsoever expect them to continue to participate.
PS- Sir Valimont, you've degraded more people and called people more names than any other person in this thread. You are the LAST person who should be calling anybody out for doing the same.I never resort to personal attacks because they are neither relevant to the point I'm making nor conducive to good conversation. If you'd care to back up your claims with quoted examples of me calling someone a name, by all means do so. You will of course note that strong language when not directed at someone in particular is far from name-calling.
You are absolutely 100% wrong.I don't like this- it screams of "I am right no matter what, and you are wrong no matter what"
OUR GOALTaken directly from the forum rules, I'd like you to read the highlighted parts.
These rules are not to limit people's freedom of speech or discussion. These rules simply strive to keep the boards on topic, productive and inclusive for all members. Accidental violation of minor rules will not result in strict penalties. We want everything to go smoothly so that our users can enjoy this forum.
Hyperbole aside, you have not actually justified your position on this at all, much less explained why it is "delusional", highly or otherwise....the tournament organiser broke the social contract first by deviating from expectations about how the event was going to be run.It is highly delusional to think that the organizer(s) of this free event deviated from any reasonable expectations.
The community did not choose one of the options of the event card. The community chose to abandon the event card. It does not matter what the event card said; it matters that the community decided to abandon it. You cannot abandon a rule -- that's the same thing as breaking it.You're again drawing a false equivalence between passive refusal to use an advantage and deliberately breaking an explicit rule. You can attempt to justify your position by talking about unwritten laws as part of some social contract, but then you need to stop implying that it is equivalent to breaking a rule.
In the United States, sometimes people make donations to charities. When an American citizen makes a donation of $1000 to certain charities, there is a law that says he is allowed to pay $1000 less dollars in taxes. Obviously donating to charity is an option, so if someone just pays the $1000 tax, that's fine.
Now: let's say an influential US citizen doesn't like the law. Well, he doesn't have to donate anything. He can make that choice. However, he ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT make a public speech about how he and all the employees in his company are not going to donate in such a way as to encourage other people in similar positions to also not donate.
*snip*
Secondly, you miss the point when you cite examples of things ScaredGirl could have done that would be egregiously unfair. The fact is that her "Age" cards were not unfair at all. They were completely within the realm of normal, to-be-expected possibilities. The only argument was whether or not they were balanced. Your example was of something unfair, not unbalanced. Of course doing something unfair would be a breach by ScaredGirl. Of course doing something unbalanced is not a breach. [...] The Age of Light card was not unfair. Whether it was unbalanced is irrelevant. But it was not unfair. And the actions undertaken are only acceptable when something is unfair.Unfair and unbalanced. Are they the same? I think, as I explained above, that within the context of a game which people entered on the implicit assumption that it was going to be run in a balanced manner, that being unbalanced was a violation of that assumption and therefore considering it "unfair" is reasonable. Bear in mind that unfair in this context does not mean the mathematical bias towards one group or another, but in fact the introduction of arbitrary biases towards arbitrary teams.
The reason was to say: This card is unacceptable. <--- That statement, which all of you were making, is the problem. It is a false statement which you are NOT ALLOWED to make. By making it and making decisions based on it, you broke the rules.You can declare such a thing to be "false" and "not allowed" all you like, but you need to provide reasoning, and so far I haven't seen a good argument that supports these outlandish statements. Also, you are yet again conflating the implicit social contract with the explicit written rules.
Actually despite your protestations you are not actually providing the requisite reasoning to explain why an event organiser has any "rights" with respect to players participating. Bare assertion does not make someone else "100% wrong".I absolutely am allowed to make that statement. If people aren't allowed to make these kinds of statements, then you have ABSOLUTELY no right to expect them to continue to participate.You are absolutely 100% wrong.
I'll say it again to emphasize it, if you completely ignore what the participants want, you have no right whatsoever expect them to continue to participate.
The entire definition of a participant is someone who submits to the rules of an event. If he doesn't like it, he can leave. As the organizer I have a right to expect him to participate and follow the rules, or he can leave. I would be stupid to expect him to stay if I completely ignore what he wants, but that doesn't change what I just said: I have a right to expect him to participate and follow the rules.
You are trying to have it both ways. You are trying to have participants not leave, but stay and ignore the rules. That is not acceptable. If someone wanted to leave because of the Age cards, of course that would be acceptable.
I think it's very clear that there was a general expectation that the event would be run in such a way as to allow all the teams a relatively even chance of winning. It seems obvious that a lot of people (if not everyone) signed up under this assumption, and I believe it is a reasonable one to make. If anything, this is made obvious by the large amount of complainants. Therefore, you have a social contract between the organisers and the players of "I will run this event fairly and to your expectations, and you will play in it".There are several assumptions made herein that I find wrong.
Nonetheless, to summarize I will return to the point: the primary issue is not with people's interpretations of how good or bad the event card is/was. The primary issue is the presumption that as a group of players, one's immediate visceral interpretations on event cards trump the necessity to uphold the social contract mentioned above. Simply put, the players are in no position to decide whether a rule is acceptable within the confines of the event, because they didn't make the rules of the event, and they don't have authority over design of the event. Yes, a player can definitely decide if something is acceptable to him personally, or to his team, or to every single player for that matter if they all agree ... but that does not give them the right to enforce change over the event anyway. As I've said before: if someone offers to sell you a car but only if you buy a house, you can say "That's unacceptable to me" and walk away. But you can't say "That's an unacceptable condition" and force him to sell you the car but not the house. You'd be making two mistakes: 1) It's not your place to do that because you don't have that authority; and 2) You are treating your own interpretation of the situation as "right" without allowing for an intelligent discussion on the matter.First in response to the bolded section, yet again I say we did the first thing you said, and noone said we had the "right to enforce change over the event". We just did as you said in the first sentence in that we decided it was not acceptable and not to use it, personally, ourselves. As far as the car/house example, that doesnt apply because a part of the contract was that they had to buy both. That would be the same as if the event card said everyone HAD to use upgraded light cards and we didnt. Again, this was not the case, so the example is moot.
We just did as you said in the first sentence in that we decided it was not acceptable and not to use it, personally, ourselves.That may be how you interpret what you did, but that is not what you did.
Daxx,Response to 1: You don't have to have authority to voice an opinion.
...snip...
Nonetheless, to summarize I will return to the point: the primary issue is not with people's interpretations of how good or bad the event card is/was. The primary issue is the presumption that as a group of players, one's immediate visceral interpretations on event cards trump the necessity to uphold the social contract mentioned above. Simply put, the players are in no position to decide whether a rule is acceptable within the confines of the event, because they didn't make the rules of the event, and they don't have authority over design of the event. Yes, a player can definitely decide if something is acceptable to him personally, or to his team, or to every single player for that matter if they all agree ... but that does not give them the right to enforce change over the event anyway. As I've said before: if someone offers to sell you a car but only if you buy a house, you can say "That's unacceptable to me" and walk away. But you can't say "That's an unacceptable condition" and force him to sell you the car but not the house. You are making two mistakes: 1) It's not your place to do that because you don't have that authority; and 2) You are treating your own interpretation of the situation as "right" without allowing for an intelligent discussion on the matter.
2) You are treating your own interpretation of the situation as "right" without allowing for an intelligent discussion on the matter.... you inversely do the same thing. In other words, you are treating your own interpretation of the situation as "wrong" regardless of the intelligent discussion and debate to the contrary. I will reiterate; it's probably best you simply agree to disagree and allow this to pass into the night. It's become obviously clear to everyone else there will be a stonewall between you and the others in this debate.
I would very much like to join the discussion, but it seems that it would never end, the same things are just being brought up over and over again. It is entirely apparent that this discussion would not reach a conclusion and nothing whatsoever is going to come off of it. Sir. Val's posts are a lot of times quite provoking and aggressive, but since no one side can persuade the other anyway, lets stop this endless "discussion" between Sir Val and everyone else so we don't aggravate the matter further. We all stated our opinions, now we can just let it go. The age cards are gone, the matter is settled. Let us move on.Here, here!!