We try. We're human and make mistakes of course. I make more than my fair share. All we can do is fix them as best as possible when they happen and try to learn from them.



Yep, you're right. I set up the example to slide toward the ridiculous on purpose. (Plus it was late, and I wasn't coming up with a better way to word the example.) Mjack has the right idea of how to word it - "That deck has some problems... " "That's not going to work, because ... " and so on.

And, in addition to that, I want to speak real quick to your last question. Whether somebody is offended or not isn't our measuring stick when determining if we should make an edit and talk to a user. If somebody reports a post, we look at it entirely based on that guideline: does the post discuss the poster or the idea? If it's the latter, even if it's harshly worded, we're almost always going to leave it alone. (I want to leave a little wiggle room.) We have had plenty of reported posts where our decision was, "do nothing" for just this reason.

So, that's a short (for me) reply. But hopefully the idea is clear.

So just to clarify: the next time someone posts something that I personally believe is so far beyond idiotic as to be borderline detrimental to this strategy board as a whole....it's okay if I word my response to assault the IDEA and not the POSTER, correct?

Because, really, the only time I even bother to "go off" on someone is because the ideas they're presenting are frankly offensive to me.

I can work on my sentence structure if that's indeed all you guys are asking of me......as long as I'm not expected to be silent or be silenced in the face of bad advice.

As for the recommendation to put these "repeat offenders" on ignore...that would defeat the purpose of why I respond to begin with: To protect new players from exceedingly poor advice and showing them better ways to think/do things. If you think I'm here to stroke my Magic ego, come on. This is Duels we're talking about. I'm mostly here to help.

Here's my take.

Poster A says "Vengeful Vampire is the best card in Dimir. It's a must run for anyone who wants to win".

Bad response:
"You're an idiot if you think that Vengeful Vampire should be anywhere near your deck list. It's a really bad card, and only a fool would run it"

Good response:
"Vengeful Vampire is terrible. It's overcosted for what it does, and anyone who runs it could easily improve their deck by swapping it out for basically anything else in the deck"



I, for one, don't want anyone to be silent in the face of bad advice. As the Code states:



So, pointing out why something is bad advice, providing better options, even saying that a card is really bad in this deck, is all fine. Telling someone they are dumb for posting something like that, is not fine.

You're missing my point.

What I'm getting at is I don't want to tone down the vitriol at all (and it's not even that bad to begin with), I'm asking if it's okay to contort my posts in a way which directs all my "flowery prose" at the idea itself and not the poster......even if my outright mocking of the idea offends the poster?

I don't do charm school. Have you ever talked Magic for real outside of a message board? How I "talk" is how a majority of people talk.

That is a rough issue as it's purely subjective.
I've never seen any reason to report anything you've said to me because I feel I know you better than that.
That being said, a reply with one tenth of the attitude you give me sometimes (Fleshbag Marauder) might send someone down Report Alley.

I think you have the right idea. I know it's going to be difficult.
Good Luck!

Crap, Harold Ramis died.
Shame.

NeoSilk, i'd like to apply your sample discussion a bit differently:

Poster A: "I'm trying to fit Blanchwood Armor into my Sylvan Might deck. Anyone have some advice on what to replace with it?"

Typical unhelpful response: "Are you kidding? Have you even read the card? Blanchwood armor is only good if you have a TON OF FORESTS. The elf deck neither needs them, nor has ways of getting them. Blanchwood Armor does not belong in this deck, and anyone who thinks it does needs to get their head examined."

While this does not directly attack Poster A, it is still has the potential to be offensive, and could be worded much more amicably:

Poster B: "Poster A, I would advise you not to use Blanchwood Armor here. The elf deck usually runs a low land count and has no ramp, so Alpha Status is usually a better aura to use. However, I don't think you need any auras, just max out on elves and draw and you're good to go."

Not only is the 2nd example there more pleasant, but it also actually answers the question, provides reasons and suggestions.
The first post, while maybe not as "flamey" as some other example, does not answer the question, does direct the comments at the poster and, IMO, is totally reportable.

If I understand this correctly, you can insult an idea, but you can't insult a person, and you can't be condescending in the way you insult their ideas. The condescension part of it seems to cover most of the blurry area.

I don't know, man, that seems a bit too light on the sauce to be considered "totally reportable". Is this place run by GobO_Theresa?

If someone reported this theoretical example, the two bolded parts would be what got the person into trouble if someone got into trouble for it. At least I think so. Particularly the second part. It's not really insulting someone's ideas alone anymore when you use the phrase "anyone who agrees with your terrible idea needs to get their head examined".

The first bolded part is just stupid. Asking somebody if they read the card is completely legit and only people with the mental age of 6 would be reporting something so inconsequential. The second part is technically reportable, but again, people need to grow up. I'm fully aware you'll report me saying that, but somebody needs to say it and I have some good will in the bank.

@Carstien,

I'm not going to report anything, because I really don't care one way or the other.

But as for the theoretical example being discussed, those are what people could get in trouble for. Someone was asking what is completely safe to post or not, and I was just answering the question. I know people can get in trouble for that because I've gotten warnings also, and it's pretty much exactly this kind of stuff. In fact, my pm box still has an email where a mod yelled at me for stuff where one of them is effectively the first bolded part.

I'm talking about the "typical poultry response" (followed by the over-the-top negative response) as being reportable.

If they're going to go after me for thinly-veiled insults, you'd think they'd "protect" me from them as well.

Lol, i've had a total of one soft warning before, and it was pretty justified. I'm usually much more interested in talking about the cards and plays than insulting people unless the person has one of those traits that just repels me. There are luckily very few of those here and the one that has around 3 of these traits happens to be firmly planted in my ignore list anyway. This is why Carstien doesn't get banned.

My gut says Shadowcran. My quote suggests mjack. Just troll both and be done with it!

I apologize if that phrase offended you; that was not my intent. On numerous occasions, I have seen you referenced as "chickenman" or "KFC" and such, and assumed it was appropriate to do so. If you prefer, I will avoid making such references in the future.

We were recently discussing, specifically, how you could reduce the amount of warnings you receive. My intent was to give an example of how I have seen you respond, while making a mild pun, and yet not directly saying, "this is how mobius talks."

I've never even considered putting Mjack on ignore actually. I find at least 20% of his posts about cards or builds have some good points in them, and i'm the first to defend his good ideas. Carstien just wondered how it feels for the ego to refer to himself in the third person is all.

Feels good.

I loled at the idea of a couple of angry, aggressive, magic nerds bickering out the validity of cards..

MTG: Srs business gaiz srsly...

It's more incredulity than a spittle-flying anger-fest to be honest.

It kind of makes me sad that people read me in some kind of LOUD ANGRY VOICE. My tone in these cases would be way more bored and dismissive...like, again, I'm incredulous to be reading/hearing such things.

To be fair, mobius, I don't read you as a loud angry dude. For me, it's more like some kind of stand-up comedian Magic player.