Deck Name : Crunch & Munch v1.2 (Anarch Version)
Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
Description :
This is an aggropoke, amaranth deck that uses Agent of Power
to enable pro weenies to play superior Loki's gift. You can then
burn the Loki's gift to provide votes to enable them to survive a
blood
hunt.
Crypt (12 vampires) Capacity min: 1 max: 4 average: 2.25
------------------------------------------------------------
3x Anarch Convert
1x Gunnar
1x Bill Butler
1x Calvin Cleaver
1x Fergus Alexander
1x Lillian
1x Lula Burch
1x Leo Washington
1x Robert Price
1x Iris Bennett
Library (90 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------
Action (23)
5x Bum's Rush
1x Fee Stake: Boston
1x Fee Stake: Corte
1x Fee Stake: Los Angeles
1x Fee Stake: New York
1x Fee Stake: Perth
1x Fee Stake: Seattle
8x Harass
4x Shattering
Action Modifier (4)
4x CrimethInc.
Action Modifier/Combat (11)
8x Predator's Transformation
3x Ritual of the Bitter Rose
Combat (25)
4x Amaranth
11x Claws of the Dead
10x Lam Into
Master (27)
13x Abombwe
4x Anarch Revolt
1x Fame
1x Gambit Accepted
1x Momentum's Edge
1x Specialization
6x Vessel
Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. (Mon Feb 23 10:23:04 2009)
On Nov 8, 8:20 am, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There's something missing, I just can't think what it could be.....
> *Chuckle*
I think it is Open War, and a different deck description.
On Nov 8, 11:20 am, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There's something missing, I just can't think what it could be.....
> *Chuckle*
Seriously, Norm. If you're going to flood the newsgroup with deck
after deck, could you at least make sure there's useful content in
them, rather than a deck that doesn't match its own description?
An "Agent of Power/Loki's Gift" that contains neither card, and has a
whole bunch of Abombwe and Fee Stakes instead, doesn't seem worth
talking about.
- D.J.
On Nov 8, 5:09 pm, Meej <djchag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> An "Agent of Power/Loki's Gift" that contains neither card, and has a
> whole bunch of Abombwe and Fee Stakes instead, doesn't seem worth
> talking about.
>
> - D.J.
It must be direct substitutes, for some reason.
Name: Fee Stake: Boston
[Anarchs:R/PAB]
Cardtype: Action
Requires a ready anarch with capacity above 4. +1 stealth action.
Title.
(...)
No vamp above 4...
Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2:45 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:>> Deck Name : Crunch & Munch v1.2 (Anarch Version)
>> Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
[yet another XZealot deck]
> Yeah seriously Norm, while you seem like a great guy...
> Super-Spamming the Group is kind of getting irritating.
Are you kidding me? Spamming the newsgroup?
Yeah, we have so many more things going on here that
someone posting decks, even a lot of them, troubles us.
Jugg, while you seem like a great guy, I'd suggest that if you
believe that posting decks on the newsgroup is a bad thing,
this forum might not be for you.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
On Nov 8, 9:32 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 2:45 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Deck Name : Crunch & Munch v1.2 (Anarch Version)
> >> Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
>
> [yet another XZealot deck]
>
> > Yeah seriously Norm, while you seem like a great guy...
> > Super-Spamming the Group is kind of getting irritating.
>
> Are you kidding me? Spamming the newsgroup?
At the time of my posting this, 19 of the last 20 topics are decks
posted by XZealot, or 33 of the last 40. I don't think he's kidding
you, that's spamming.
Brandon
On Nov 9, 5:03 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
KJM is potentially take a sarcastic shot at me. It's okay, I can deal
with Kevin being Kevin.
But I would prefer it if Norm started a "Norms Decks" thread and
popped all of them in there...
On Nov 9, 12:32 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 2:45 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Deck Name : Crunch & Munch v1.2 (Anarch Version)
> >> Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
>
> [yet another XZealot deck]
>
> > Yeah seriously Norm, while you seem like a great guy...
> > Super-Spamming the Group is kind of getting irritating.
>
> Are you kidding me? Spamming the newsgroup?
>
> Yeah, we have so many more things going on here that
> someone posting decks, even a lot of them, troubles us.
>
> Jugg, while you seem like a great guy, I'd suggest that if you
> believe that posting decks on the newsgroup is a bad thing,
> this forum might not be for you.
Posting decks isn't the problem. The problem is that he's dangerously
close to failing the Turing test with these posts... the posts are
often just deck lists, which could in fact have been randomly
generated by a computer using things like Markov chains, pattern
templates, and a database of previous decklists. Such a program could
easily post a hundred "new" decks to the list if it was set to,
exactly like an automated spambot. The only potential giveaways that
there might be human interaction behind this is that the decks appear
to have somewhat appropriate names (although those could also be
generated) and a rare few have some comments (although decklists like
the one above are actually suggestive of a very buggy program to
generate those too).
I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask for decklist posts to come
with some sort of human touch... an introduction to the intent and
workings of the deck would be nice, and since these decks have
reportedly been played at least twice, it'd be nice to hear about how
they performed. Even if the deck is machine generated, I'd like to
hear some commentary from the person who wrote/ran the program
involved. We don't need to see all 100 decks so quickly that more
time couldn't be spent in writing proper posts about them and giving
people time to digest them before posting more.
Brent
On Nov 9, 1:03 am, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> At the time of my posting this, 19 of the last 20 topics are decks
> posted by XZealot, or 33 of the last 40. I don't think he's kidding
> you, that's spamming.
Well, here is the thing. Norm, while probably not being the most
efficient or most condusive to reasonable discussion in the posting of
his decks of late, is both on topic and following the newsgroup rules
(i.e. he is clearly labeling the posts, and they are posts that are
relevant to the newsgroup). For my money, I'd much rather see posts
that have some discussion/explanation in them, but, ya know, that's
me.
So while he certainly is making a lot of individual posts in the last
few days, they aren't at all out of the realm of reasonable in terms
of newsgroup use. And on the upside, they help drown out the "saxxy
ashiwara" posts that we have been losing ground to...
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
... and also drowning the EC 2011 topic.
I usually don't mind that he posts some decks, but if 40 uncommented
decks (and topics) seems "reasonable" for you, apparently I'm not the
only one it bothers.
As someone pointed out earlier, the noise/signal ratio is awful.
> For my money, I'd much rather see posts
> that have some discussion/explanation in them, but, ya know, that's
> me.
As would anyone. The idea I have of the newsgroup is a place where
we're supposed to exchange some ideas, not reading some boring
monologue without any clue of what it's about (deck improvement? has
it been tested? against what kind of deck? how did it behave?).
On Nov 9, 7:35 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> So while he certainly is making a lot of individual posts in the last
> few days, they aren't at all out of the realm of reasonable in terms
> of newsgroup use.
Except that they're borderline-useless, because there are so damn many
and they're uncommented (or the comments are wrong), half-baked, or
minor variations on a theme.
I'd have loved to discuss some of his ideas, successes/failures, etc,
especially on the ones where he's made 3 versions of the same deck
with little tweaks. But there's not much point, because it's lost in
the flood of other posts.
> And on the upside, they help drown out the "saxxy
> ashiwara" posts that we have been losing ground to...
In the sense that a white noise machine drowns out unpleasant noise,
sure. I'm not sure that's an upside, though, really.
- D.J.
On Nov 9, 7:35 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> So while he certainly is making a lot of individual posts in the last
> few days, they aren't at all out of the realm of reasonable in terms
> of newsgroup use.
Except that they're borderline-useless, because there are so damn many
and they're uncommented (or the comments are wrong), half-baked, or
minor variations on a theme.
I'd have loved to discuss some of his ideas, successes/failures, etc,
especially on the ones where he's made 3 versions of the same deck
with little tweaks. But there's not much point, because it's lost in
the flood of other posts.
> And on the upside, they help drown out the "saxxy> ashiwara" posts that we have been losing ground to...
In the sense that a white noise machine drowns out unpleasant noise,
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 9, 9:02 am, Meej <djchag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the sense that a white noise machine drowns out unpleasant noise,
> sure. I'm not sure that's an upside, though, really.
Ah, the irony of accidentally double-posting in a thread about signal-
to-noise. :P
(And then following it up with this "mea culpa.")
- D.J.
On Nov 9, 7:50 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... and also drowning the EC 2011 topic.
Then continue discussion in the EC 2011 topic and it doesn't get
drowned out. In a standard newsreader, new posts show up. In google
groups, it floats to the top of the discussion list.
> I usually don't mind that he posts some decks, but if 40 uncommented
> decks (and topics) seems "reasonable" for you, apparently I'm not the
> only one it bothers.
> As someone pointed out earlier, the noise/signal ratio is awful.
Sure. But they are on topic (i.e. about VTES). And appropriately
labeled. You can always killfile him if you are using a newsreader.
> As would anyone. The idea I have of the newsgroup is a place where
> we're supposed to exchange some ideas, not reading some boring
> monologue without any clue of what it's about (deck improvement? has
> it been tested? against what kind of deck? how did it behave?).
Sure. But then, just don't read the deck posts--they are clearly
labeled.
-Peter
On Nov 9, 12:55 am, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask for decklist posts to come
> with some sort of human touch... an introduction to the intent and
> workings of the deck would be nice, and since these decks have
> reportedly been played at least twice, it'd be nice to hear about how
> they performed. Even if the deck is machine generated, I'd like to
> hear some commentary from the person who wrote/ran the program
> involved. We don't need to see all 100 decks so quickly that more
> time couldn't be spent in writing proper posts about them and giving
> people time to digest them before posting more.
Personally, this doesn't bother me at all; aside from a score of
different threads about EC results, the newsgroup has been relatively
quiet for the last couple of weeks.
(Plus, some newsreaders don't have a problem handling a slew of
threads, as noted before, either by how they're designed or by setting
filters and sorting.)
That said, I'd love Norm to go back and add some commentary about how
they've performed, time permitting.
> Brent
-John Flournoy
> KJM is potentially take a sarcastic shot at me. It's okay, I can deal
> with Kevin being Kevin.
> But I would prefer it if Norm started a "Norms Decks" thread and
> popped all of them in there...
Norm, I'd like your input here. Why did you post so many threads? Are
they just intended for you to read, or do you want feedback? Is there
a way that you could do this to take newsgroup readers into
consideration who don't use newsreader software, maybe as Jugg
suggests above?
Brandon
On Nov 9, 4:54 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
It might be a conspiracy.
Now that CCP is saying goodbey, we need a new worldwide forum for
vtes, where we can have space for events, twd's, general discussion,
rules questions and DECKS.
This way Norm shows some weaknesses of newsgroups and motivates the
general population for a change.
Maybe it is a secret agenda to show people that this newsgroup thing
is outdated and a better way to sort discussions should be implemented
and used. ;)
Tiago
[ quoted text not captured ]
That's just it... where's the rush? Is there some new set coming out
new week that's forever going to change the game and makes it
necessary for all these decks to be pushed out as fast as possible
now?
What the newsgroup needs in these tough times isn't a large quantity
of new threads where people have to decrypt and puzzle out the initial
post before they can reply and start a discussion going... that's just
going to help kill the newsgroup, because people will get tired of
that and go away if they think that's all the group has to offer now.
You want people having discussions that bring them back regularly, and
to do that you need to increase the quality of the initial thread
posts. The newsgroup being low volume isn't a reason to allow
spammish behaviour, and neither is the ability of software to handle
it... the group needs posts that encourage real discussion about the
game to help keep things going, not slews of posts that mostly are
encouraging meta-discussion on the slew of posts. A couple of real
discussion threads is better than a 100 new decklist threads which are
killfiled by some, ignored by most, and almost never followed up on
because people don't want to bother trying to figure out the intent of
the creator (who could have saved all the people who do try to read
the post their five minutes of time by spending an extra minute of his
own when posting... really, it's kind of rude to waste people's time
like that).
So a better approach than pushing out 15 posts that are just
decklists, would be to take the same time and put out one or two (or a
single collection of similar ones) with some actual commentary and
quick notes that might start a discussion. And if some decklists
don't get out that way because he creates new ones and wants to post
those instead... well, those decks are probably not that good or
interesting, otherwise they'd have been higher in the queue and posted
first Plus, it's not like they can't be posted later down the line...
without a new set coming there's plenty of time for that now, so they
can easily be saved for posting on a rainy day.
Brent
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:31:41 -0800 (PST), bwross wrote:
>What the newsgroup needs in these tough times isn't a large quantity
>of new threads where people have to decrypt and puzzle out the initial
>post before they can reply and start a discussion going...
So create them.
>the group needs posts that encourage real discussion about the
>game to help keep things going, not slews of posts that mostly are
>encouraging meta-discussion on the slew of posts.
So create them.
If you want the newsgroup to be different than all Norm all the time,
create some threads, start some discussions.
Proposed topics:
1) What are you doing right now to promote the game?
2) What are you doing right now to encourage your current players to
continue?
3) What are you doing right now to get new players into your local
area?
4) What are you doing right now to run tournaments?
On Nov 9, 12:41 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:31:41 -0800 (PST), bwross wrote:
> >What the newsgroup needs in these tough times isn't a large quantity
> >of new threads where people have to decrypt and puzzle out the initial
> >post before they can reply and start a discussion going...
>
> So create them.
Doesn't make the flood of noise-posts go away, though.
- D.J. (who has, at least, attempted to spin a discussion out of one
of the Normposts)
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Meej wrote:
>> So create them.>
>Doesn't make the flood of noise-posts go away, though.
>
>- D.J. (who has, at least, attempted to spin a discussion out of one
>of the Normposts)
No, but if there were 30 people that actually cared about it, Norm's
posts would disappear into true discussion.
Harassing him here isn't going to change his behaviour.
If you really have a problem with an individual, take it to the
individual.
Chastising in public has no value (see repeated attempts by the
thousands of people across thousands of newsgroups).
If you have a problem with a person, talk to the person.
If you want different material on a newsgroup, create it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
First, before discussing these separate issues in a different thread,
is there agreement about the way to go forward(i.e. post whatever you
want in as many posts as you feel like vs post with some objective for
the most part, particularly provoking discussion)? I feel like you
have some interesting questions there, maybe something that could help
further the game.
Brandon
On Nov 9, 9:11 am, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It might be a conspiracy.
> Now that CCP is saying goodbey, we need a new worldwide forum for
> vtes, where we can have space for events, twd's, general discussion,
> rules questions and DECKS.
> This way Norm shows some weaknesses of newsgroups and motivates the
> general population for a change.
> Maybe it is a secret agenda to show people that this newsgroup thing
> is outdated and a better way to sort discussions should be implemented
> and used. ;)
>
> Tiago
Indeed. With the usual forums on a website, the decklist posts would
just fall into subforums and be easily digestible. I'm sure different
newsgroup readers can arrange threads in different ways, but I find
the interfaces with the UK site and Presence, say, to work just fine
once logical subforums are created.
Then, rather than have discussion scattered all over the place, as it
is now, with the newsgroup only being the primary connection for the
playerbase, a single set of forums with areas for discussing for each
territory in whatever the appropriate language would be would make
information more readily available and improve communication. Sure,
it's a bit odd to have regional forums for subregions, e.g. Dallas or
Seattle, in a structure that includes nations, continents, or
whatever, so maybe it's a bit of overkill to remove all of the
territorial forums in existence and consolidate them into one place,
but when you see the same deck posted to 3, 4, 5, 6 forums for
comment, it's just ridiculous. I certainly wouldn't mind being able
to quickly scan the French, Spanish, or whatever forums when some
notable event occurs rather than hunt down the urls (not going to
bother bookmarking them all).
On Nov 9, 1:08 pm, brandonsantacruz wrote:
> First, before discussing these separate issues in a different thread,
> is there agreement about the way to go forward(i.e. post whatever you
> want in as many posts as you feel like vs post with some objective for
> the most part, particularly provoking discussion)?
The newsgroup FAQ should handle this, particularly section 6.
I have no personal preference on many threads many decks poorly
fleshed out, vs one thread many decks poorly fleshed out.
I'm going to enjoy Norm either way.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I am not spamming the newsgroup. I am posting decks. If you don't
like them then don't read them. I am looking for deck responses.
[ quoted text not captured ]
How about the content or objective of a post, do you have any
preference there? You brought up promotion of VTES as something you
are interested in, surely others can agree that that's an interesting
topic. The goal of a voluntary social group like this one might have
something to do with mutually beneficial writings, conversations, or
activities. If not, why not write everything on word documents? I
don't intend for this to be a conversation for my(or our) exclusive
benefit, but to open it up to others.
I thought it was an interesting point that someone(Brent?) brought up
in the other thread about what the newsgroup would look like to
someone new to it. If they see 19 or 20 consecutive posts by one
person with little or no conversation, they might think that it was
practically empty. If I see it, I think either, "wow, it is really
slow lately," or "what is this person doing starting so many different
threads?"
The idea about having different sections for different topics(i.e.
Path of Blood, Sabbat in France, etc) might help mitigate any issues
of unwanted topics. If you go to a decklist secion, expect a decklist.
You will not be bothered by a decklist thread in the game re-cap
section(usually), or vice versa. This is different than the way things
are now, and may potentially enlighten the discussion about spam vs
not spam, since it is subjective on the whole(even if it is written
somewhere by some person some number of years ago).
Brandon
> Jugg, while you seem like a great guy, I'd suggest that if you
> believe that posting decks on the newsgroup is a bad thing,
> this forum might not be for you.
This is why I think that newsgroups are superior to forums. If I "go
crazy" and post 30 decks then 30 decks get posted. Sure, some people
get their panties in a bind, because they can't digest that much
content. It's a newsgroup. The content is permanent, You can always
go back and read it later.
If this was a forum then 3 or 4 really vocal voices cry out "your
decks make my eyeballs bleed!" and then some jackass moderator gets
rid of my posts.
It happened to me at least once on white wolf's forums.
That is why I stay here
On 9 nov, 20:18, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought it was an interesting point that someone(Brent?) brought up
> in the other thread about what the newsgroup would look like to
> someone new to it. If they see 19 or 20 consecutive posts by one
> person with little or no conversation, they might think that it was
> practically empty. If I see it, I think either, "wow, it is really
> slow lately," or "what is this person doing starting so many different
> threads?"
>
This is an important thing right here. When I first started reading
this NG, I also just started playing VTES. I was fed up with the
direction MTG had taken, but I had always enjoyed reading discussions
on strategy, deck building, card art... So I was hoping to find a
similar place where I could read that kinda stuff about VTES and I
found it here.
Now though.. if I had joined now, I'd read the first bunch of those
posts, scratch my head thinking what the idea of any of these decks
could be as there is hardly any (or no) description or elaboration. I
also wouldn't understand the comments given, if any. I'd think, "wow
this is an insiders-only group, apparently". And I'd leave.
..So I'd miss the discussion on other more interesting topics that
might not have been updated in a couple of days (and therefor bumped
away by Norm's 30+ threads), but that would've been new to me*. I
wouldn't bother looking for more interesting stuff on page 6, you know
what I mean?
* this is still true. I don't visit the many forums I like on a daily
basis, but rather 2, 3 times a week. So stuff that's already old to
some is often new to me.
I'd like to stress that I don't want to attack Norm personally here.
But I too think that, for many people (even regulars), deck-posts
without any initial comment or request for a specific kind of input/
criticism are pretty useless and uninteresting. And as I tried to
point out here, new people/irregulars might very well leave because of
them. Which is a bad thing, especially now VTES is again in torpor.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Norm,
I didn't say "don't post your decks" I said "Post your decks in one
thread". Viewing this thing through Google Groups means to read other
than "Norms Deck #2419" I have to go digging back page after page
after page. So, go nuts and post decks, just post them all as replies
to your own original deck... OR... don't post 30 of them in a day.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, but as many of us tell you, surely it's not the best way to get
responses.
It isn't a question of quantity (though answering to 30 decks in 2
days is not possible, and don't talk about "permanency" of the
newsgroup because everyone one will have forgotten them in two weeks)
it's a question of:
1/ quality of the posts (-> no comments, no feedback etc.)
2/ efficiency (if you really want answers, don't post cryptic
messages)
The trouble is that you don't see there's something wrong. Maybe you
should try to figure out why there were so many negative
reactions.instead of trying to convince the Earth that it's ok.
(BTW, you don't mind if I spam your mailbox with mails? If you don't
like them then don't read them... Sounds stupid to me)
Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> XZealot wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
Your problem is that you are using a non-threaded webpage to view
a newsgroup and then complaining that, because of the modern
technology of the webpage, you will experience problems when someone
uses the ancient newsgroup technology properly.
This is YOUR issue, not XZealot's, so stop blaming him.
Get a proper (thread-based) newsreader and you'll no longer have this
problem. What OS do you use?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Vincent wrote:
> (BTW, you don't mind if I spam your mailbox with mails?
> If you don't like them then don't read them... Sounds stupid to me)
Your comparison is ENTIRELY INVALID, not to mention illegal.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
You must have missed the rally to restore sanity. There's no call for
such an undiplomatic approach. Learn more at comedycentral.com
Brandon
[ quoted text not captured ]> You must have missed the rally to restore sanity. There's no call for
> such an undiplomatic approach. Learn more at comedycentral.com
Now THIS is spam! Someone complain! QUICK!!!! ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Seriously though, people have a problem with a rapid succession of
posting and will continue to, both because this software you talk
about requires installation and because new people come into the group
all the time(or one would hope). Is it too much to ask that the number
of threads someone produces be considered? If you have a buttload of
deck ideas, consolidating your threads or starting a blog where those
who want to be able to read them at any time with nifty key words
seems like a sensible thing to do. There is an issue of shared space,
of a commons on this newsgroup and to say "it's your problem you have
trouble with my 33 posts over a few days" not only slights those who
bring it up respectfully, it is a bit mystifying.
Brandon
brandonsantacruz wrote:
> Seriously though, people have a problem with a rapid succession of
> posting and will continue to, both because this software you talk
> about requires installation and because new people come into the
> group all the time(or one would hope). Is it too much to ask that
> the number of threads someone produces be considered? If you have
> a buttload of deck ideas, consolidating your threads or starting
> a blog where those who want to be able to read them at any time with
> nifty key words seems like a sensible thing to do. There is an issue
> of shared space, of a commons on this newsgroup and to say "it's
> your problem you have trouble with my 33 posts over a few days" not
> only slights those who bring it up respectfully, it is a bit
> mystifying.
(I'm going to assume here that you understand the historical usage
and definition of a newsgroup and not give you a definition.)
This is a newsgroup. We have no ability to change that fact.
A person that DOES have an issue with XZ's posts "pushing" other posts
off the front page (or whatever) of the non-threaded method by which
they are accessing this newsgroup HAS THE ABILITY to obtain a threaded
newsreader which will alleviate their problems. I'll help them.
If the person in question doesn't wish to do that -- or doesn't accept
that rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad is a newsgroup -- blaming their own
choices on a user who is using the newsgroups "properly" and asking
EVERYONE ELSE to change THEIR proper use of the technology in question
is highly inappropriate.
Would you set up a film projector in an opera house and then suggest
to the singers and musicians that they stop singing and making music
and put up a movie screen?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
[ quoted text not captured ]
> If the person in question doesn't wish to do that -- or doesn't accept
> that rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad is a newsgroup -- blaming their own
> choices on a user who is using the newsgroups "properly" and asking
> EVERYONE ELSE to change THEIR proper use of the technology in question
> is highly inappropriate.
>
> Would you set up a film projector in an opera house and then suggest
> to the singers and musicians that they stop singing and making music
> and put up a movie screen?
KJM,
I'd ask the singers and musicians to join in and make the movie better
by working together.
All I'm asking is that Norms post don't keep on turning up as NEW
threads in the "thread-based" internet view Google Groups which is the
easiest, simplest and quickest method for myself and many others to
access this Newsgroup. I would happily contribute to an extensive
debate about whichever decks Norm has put up and debate them relative
to each other or as a set or separately... but I would like to also
easily be able to check other things on my filtered-by-my-government-
workplace-internet-protocols than what were the last 30 decks posted
by Norm. I suspect many other people will possibly be hamstrung by
this sort of scenario as well.
Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> KevinM wrote:>> If the person in question doesn't wish to do that -- or doesn't
>> accept that rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad is a newsgroup -- blaming
>> their own choices on a user who is using the newsgroups "properly"
>> and asking EVERYONE ELSE to change THEIR proper use of the
>> technology in question is highly inappropriate.
>>
>> Would you set up a film projector in an opera house and then suggest
>> to the singers and musicians that they stop singing and making music
>> and put up a movie screen?>
> KJM,
> I'd ask the singers and musicians to join in and make the movie better
> by working together.
Ok. At least you are honest that you'd be for the destruction
of the Opera in favor of the film.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 9, 9:31 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
*sigh*
Alright, let's break it down. First, the default is to look at the
newsgroup through a web browser. It sounds like there is added
functionality when viewing this stuff through some program. Great, but
not really practical to set up in all of the places people read the
newsgroup, nor is it usually necessary. Second, XZealot is the *only
user* who is posting so many different threads on the newsgroup. This
is pretty uncommon, even for him. If it was actually about asking
"everyone else to change their proper usage of the technology," then
it would be "highly inappropriate." That not being the case, don't get
too offended.
Brandon
On 10 nov, 01:31, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Vincent wrote:
> > (BTW, you don't mind if I spam your mailbox with mails?
> > If you don't like them then don't read them... Sounds stupid to me)
>
> Your comparison is ENTIRELY INVALID, not to mention illegal.
>
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
> "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
> you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
> "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
I think YOU REALLY CONVINCED ME by writing in capital letters. Shh.
Juggernaut1981 <brassc...@gmail.com> writes:
> > If the person in question doesn't wish to do that -- or doesn't accept
> > that rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad is a newsgroup -- blaming their own
> > choices on a user who is using the newsgroups "properly" and asking
> > EVERYONE ELSE to change THEIR proper use of the technology in question
> > is highly inappropriate.
> >
> > Would you set up a film projector in an opera house and then suggest
> > to the singers and musicians that they stop singing and making music
> > and put up a movie screen?
>
> KJM,
> I'd ask the singers and musicians to join in and make the movie better
> by working together.
rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad is an opera house, not a movie theater.
(Oh how I loved saying that... I made this whole post just to write it. :-)
In real life, people don't go to the opera and then complain it doesn't show
movies. Thankfully.
> but I would like to also easily be able to check other things on my
> filtered-by-my-government- workplace-internet-protocols than what were the
> last 30 decks posted by Norm.
See? Now that's entirely *your* problem. Norm doesn't filter your content.
Buy an internet connection of your own, and there will be no filtering.
Why should Norm obey the rules of your workplace?
HG
On 10 nov, 12:35, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote:
> See? Now that's entirely *your* problem. Norm doesn't filter your content.
> Buy an internet connection of your own, and there will be no filtering.
>
> Why should Norm obey the rules of your workplace?
>
He doesn't *have to* of course. But Jugggernaut is not alone in this.
For one, it is *my* problem too. And as Jugg is trying to explain, not
all problems result from a choice voluntarily made.
There's no question of "obeying" anything, no one is forcing anyone.
But there is a question of courtesy, of consideration for people who
(voluntarily or not) don't go about things in exactly the way that you
do.
Deck Name : Crunch & Munch v1.1
Author : Norman S. Brown Jr
Description :
This is an aggropoke, amaranth deck that uses Agent of Power
to enable pro weenies to play superior Loki's gift. You can then
burn the Loki's gift to provide votes to enable them to survive a
blood
hunt.
Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3.25
------------------------------------------------------------
1x Celeste Lamontagne 5 ANI PRO for !Gangrel:4
1x Jacob Fermor 5 PRO ani tha Gangrel:4
1x Mowgli 5 FOR PRO ani cel !Gangrel:4
1x Gunnar 4 PRO for Gangrel:4
1x Bill Butler 3 pot pro !Gangrel:4
1x Calvin Cleaver 3 for pro Gangrel:4
1x Fergus Alexander 3 pot pro Gangrel:5
1x Lillian 3 ani pro Gangrel:5
1x Lula Burch 3 for pro !Gangrel:4
1x Leo Washington 2 cel pro !Gangrel:4
1x Robert Price 2 pro Gangrel:4
1x Iris Bennett 1 pro Caitiff:5
Library [90 cards]
------------------------------------------------------------
Action [28]
10x Bum's Rush
10x Harass
8x Loki's Gift
Action Modifier/Combat [12]
8x Predator's Transformation
4x Ritual of the Bitter Rose
Combat [23]
6x Amaranth
17x Claws of the Dead
Master [27]
8x Abombwe
8x Agent of Power
1x Fame
1x Gambit Accepted
1x Momentum's Edge
1x Specialization
7x Vessel
Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Wed Nov 10 07:44:03 2010]
On Nov 10, 10:35 pm, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have my own internet connection, but like quite a lot of us I'm sure
there are 8+ hours of the day we are at our workplaces. And my
workplace runs on its internet, because it's a Government department
dealing with children.
I'm not asking Norm to obey my workplace rules. I'm asking Norm to
make it easier for me to discuss his decks, discuss the future of the
VEKN, discuss tournaments, card rulings, and all other things VTES
*through a web browser*. I have tried, about 4 times now, to politely
and civilly ask him, and indirectly everyone else, to please not
create a long litany of new threads in the Newgroup. I have no
problem with the *content* of his posts, just the manner in which he
is doing them. Now, if that hasn't yet cleared it all up and
explained what I'm trying to get across, then I'm not sure what will.
By the way Norm... nice Protean Aggropoke. I'd be tempted to make it
but I don't have the Loki's to do it.
On Nov 10, 3:59 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have tried, about 4 times now, to politely
> and civilly ask him, and indirectly everyone else, to please not
> create a long litany of new threads in the Newgroup. I have no
> problem with the *content* of his posts, just the manner in which he
> is doing them. Now, if that hasn't yet cleared it all up and
> explained what I'm trying to get across, then I'm not sure what will.
FWIW, I appreciate it when things that don't belong in the same thread
are not put in the same thread. Rules questions. Deck lists. Whatever.
Norm's creation of a litany of new threads is exactly how the subjects/
threads of USENET are supposed to be used.
(No arguing that more expository text is better -- that's what more
means -- but that's true for most rules questions, too, which are
often self-answering if you get enough exposition going in the
question. But it's not a requirement.)
Teeka wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Please explain to me how it is courteous for someone who is using this
technology in the correct fashion to beging to use it in a less-
correct fashion, yet it isn't courtesy for you to obtain a tool to use
this technology in the correct fashion?
[ quoted text not captured ]
brandonsantacruz wrote:
> If you choose to not take these complaints seriously,
I do take them seriously. What makes you think I don't?
> there isn't any more to talk about. These are spam
> and will be flagged as such.
I hope your efforts bring you the results you desire.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
[ quoted text not captured ]
brandonsantacruz wrote:
> brandonsantacruz wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]>> If you choose to not take these complaints seriously, there isn't
>> any more to talk about. These are spam and will be flagged as such.>
> *sigh*
>
> Alright, let's break it down.
Good to see that you've stopped acting irrationally.
> First, the default is to look at the newsgroup through a web
> browser.
And I could make the similarly obfuscating claim that the default
method of listening to opera is with earphones. See how that works?
> Second, XZealot is the *only user* who is posting so many different
> threads on the newsgroup. This is pretty uncommon, even for him.
> If it was actually about asking "everyone else to change their
> proper usage of the technology," then it would be "highly
> inappropriate." That not being the case, don't get too offended.
Ah, I see. So when someone uses the ancient technology correctly,
follows the established rules correctly, but uses them in an exuberant
fashion which offends the modern users because the modern tool by
which they have chosen to use the ancient technology works less-well
and less-efficiently, then it is the ancient user's issue to conform
to the modern user's needs?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 11 marras, 12:13, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. So when someone uses the ancient technology correctly,
> follows the established rules correctly, but uses them in an exuberant
> fashion which offends the modern users because the modern tool by
> which they have chosen to use the ancient technology works less-well
> and less-efficiently, then it is the ancient user's issue to conform
> to the modern user's needs?
So that's what this is about :)
Being considerate isn't the same thing as being subordinate. I'm going
to make a wild guess here and say that most people here use
googlegroups so it should be in everyone's best interest to at least
acknowledge their wishes.
[ quoted text not captured ]> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
I'm not arguing Norm isn't using Usenet properly. Also, I too think a
new deck should get a new thread. The courtesey bit is realising
that:
a] most of the 'non-veteran' VTES players who would otherwise love to
read/join a discussion about decks, have no use of your threads in
their current format; b] to these people, getting 30 of those posts a
day is no fun to the point of being straight out annoying; c]not
everyone can use a newsreader to filter your posts out, even if they
wanted to.
(I've also made an argument earlier about keeping the NG attractive to
people who might be new to it and how a page 1 and 2 of almost nothing
but 1-post Xzealot threads is not going to help, but no one seems to
want to comment on that...)
If everyone would start their deck threads in a way most of us could
actually work with/have fun reading, so they (hopefully) turn into
interesting discussions, I'd have no problem with seeing 30 of them a
day.
suoli wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
The problem with "considering" the GoogleGroups users is that they
aren't upset because XZealot posted 20+ messages, since based on the
arguments presented so far, their modern technology would cause them
to be upset if he had posted just 10 messages.
They are upset because they have nothing better to do, nothing to add
to the discussion, and no decks of their own to post.
In fact, this is similar to the argument that certain other people
on the newsgroup like to use regarding "sales" postings (although
at least they have some kind of argument there in that sales postings
are against the newsgroup charter) in that the whining, bitching,
moaning, and complaining creates much, much more newsgroup traffic
than the original gaming-related post itself. Which, to me, is proof
positive of the complaining user's real motives.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 11, 8:29 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> The problem with "considering" the GoogleGroups users is that they
> aren't upset because XZealot posted 20+ messages, since based on the
> arguments presented so far, their modern technology would cause them
> to be upset if he had posted just 10 messages.
Despite your unwavering arrogance on this point, those of us who (for
whatever reason) have no option other than GoogleGroups some of the
time don't need you to speak for us, especially when (as here) you're
wrong. In fact, this has nothing to do, particularly, with
GoogleGroups, which is a tangent that *you* brought up, erroneously
(since GG actually *does* support threading).
Additionally, those of us who have expressed being bothered by the
flood of posts have tried, clearly, to state that in fact it is
*exactly* the quantity and frequency that's the problem. 10 messages
would have been much, much cleaner, and assuming they were more
selected and edited, they'd have been much more useful to the group
and to Norm. (Heck, Norm going back and adding comments and thoughts,
however brief, to a lot of them was a big help. Thanks, Norm, for
staying constructive in the midst of all this shit-flinging that some
folks have been stirring up, including things like Kevin's near-
trolling behavior here.)
> They are upset because they have nothing better to do, nothing to add
> to the discussion, and no decks of their own to post.
Noticed much that at least some of us have been trying to put some
signal back into the noise by adding to the actual discussion on the
few decks where there was something to say? Given that, can you
please go back on your meds or whatever's given you the crankies today
and stop reinforcing the impression that you mostly just like to be an
asshole, stir up trouble, and post arrogant, presumptive flamebait?
Kevin, I've never met you. I know a bunch of folks who have, and just
about all of them state that you're a much nicer and cooler person in
real life than you come across on the forums. I look forward to
getting a chance to meet you someday (I don't travel much for VTES for
family reasons, but if you ever head out to Boston I'll try to make it
to the play session you're at) and dispel the impression I've gotten
over the newsgroup. But bullshit like this post doesn't help.
- D.J.
On Nov 9, 8:24 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Jugg, while you seem like a great guy, I'd suggest that if you
> > believe that posting decks on the newsgroup is a bad thing,
> > this forum might not be for you.
>
> This is why I think that newsgroups are superior to forums. If I "go
> crazy" and post 30 decks then 30 decks get posted. Sure, some people
> get their panties in a bind, because they can't digest that much
> content. It's a newsgroup. The content is permanent, You can always
> go back and read it later.
>
> If this was a forum then 3 or 4 really vocal voices cry out "your
> decks make my eyeballs bleed!" and then some jackass moderator gets
> rid of my posts.
>
> It happened to me at least once on white wolf's forums.
>
> That is why I stay here
Norm, come to thepathofblood.com
we have some decks posted on there that make most of your s seem
positively mundane
[ quoted text not captured ]> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
Kevin, because as has been explained a number of times now, not
everyone is free to install whatever tech they want in all the places
they use this group. So while it might not be a problem at home, if
you are at work/school/the moon the strong probability exists that you
will be forced to use whatever is available. And as such, Google
Groups is usually it. The fact that there are options does not change
the other fact that Norm spawned about 30 threads in the space of a
few hours, none of which have any kind of comments worth mentioning,
and are thus highly difficult to respond to.
That said, however, I don't mind Norm's eccentric decks, in fact i
love them. Somewhere in between your arrgh stop being noob and install
new tech and juggs argh stop spamming there exists the happy middle
ground of if you dont like it, dont read it. His threads are all
appropriately labeled, so just ignore them if you dont wanna see them.
and frankly, if you want a post not to be pushed off the front page,
it is as simple as replying to it with a sensible reply to get it back
to the front page, at the top of the list, for those forced to use
groups.
Can this edition of the internet olympics come to an end now please?
it is much more annoying than the decks that actually spawned it, and
you are all beginning to sound like winners of an internet
argument... ;)
Blooded Sand wrote:
> That said, however, I don't mind Norm's eccentric decks, in fact i
> love them. Somewhere in between your arrgh stop being noob and install
> new tech and juggs argh stop spamming there exists the happy middle
> ground of if you dont like it, dont read it. His threads are all
> appropriately labeled, so just ignore them if you dont wanna see them.
>
> and frankly, if you want a post not to be pushed off the front page,
> it is as simple as replying to it with a sensible reply to get it back
> to the front page, at the top of the list, for those forced to use
> groups.
Well said. I just wish that everyone who doesn't want to read
XZealot's posts would have followed your advice to begin with.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 11, 9:41 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Well said. I just wish that everyone who doesn't want to read
> XZealot's posts would have followed your advice to begin with.
And for those of us who would like to read XZealot's more useful posts
that have something to contribute, but feel that he's losing a signal-
to-noise war with himself?
Any advice there?
- D.J.
Teeka wrote:
> I'm not arguing Norm isn't using Usenet properly. Also, I too think
> a new deck should get a new thread. The courtesey bit is realising
> that:
> a] most of the 'non-veteran' VTES players who would otherwise love
> to read/join a discussion about decks, have no use of your threads
> in their current format;
What "format" is this we are discussing? I'm confused, I really don't
understand what you are saying.
> b] to these people, getting 30 of those posts a day is no fun
> to the point of being straight out annoying;
I find half of the posts here annoying. That's not a valid reason
for all the commotion.
> c]not everyone can use a newsreader to filter your posts out,
> even if they wanted to.
I know MANY players whose main access to this newsgroup is at or
through their work, and I don't hear them complaining. Just a small,
unrepresentative minority. Not that that minority aren't worth
listening to -- I think they are -- but all I'm really hearing is
that they are dissatisfied with GoogleGroups' ability to let them deal
with XZealot's posting habits to their satisfaction. Which is their
issue and not his. I have sympathy for them, but only to a point.
> If everyone would start their deck threads in a way most of us could
> actually work with/have fun reading, so they (hopefully) turn into
> interesting discussions, I'd have no problem with seeing 30 of them
> a day.
Could you give me an example of what starting a deck thread in a way
which would work for most of the newsgroup readers in order to get
them to have fun reading it would look like? Perhaps then I'll more
clearly understand what everyone is complaining about and perhaps
XZealot will be able to see how he could modify his posting habits.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
[ quoted text not captured ]
Meej wrote:
> "Kevin M." wrote:>> The problem with "considering" the GoogleGroups users is that they
>> aren't upset because XZealot posted 20+ messages, since based on the
>> arguments presented so far, their modern technology would cause them
>> to be upset if he had posted just 10 messages.>
> Despite your unwavering arrogance on this point,
[...]
[rest of hypocritical ad-hominem attack post snipped]
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 11, 10:28 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Meej wrote:
> > "Kevin M." wrote:
> >> The problem with "considering" the GoogleGroups users is that they
> >> aren't upset because XZealot posted 20+ messages, since based on the
> >> arguments presented so far, their modern technology would cause them
> >> to be upset if he had posted just 10 messages.
>
> > Despite your unwavering arrogance on this point,
>
> [...]
>
> [rest of hypocritical ad-hominem attack post snipped]
While I'm not willing to go as far as accepting the "hypocritical ad-
hominem attack post" label, I'll accept that it was too harshly worded
to provoke a reasonable discussion with you. That was one where I
probably should have paused before hitting send.
Let me try again, editing my post to the parts I was hoping you'd
address, and taking out anything related to your personality, posting
style, or behavior:
On Nov 11, 8:29 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> The problem with "considering" the GoogleGroups users is that they
> aren't upset because XZealot posted 20+ messages, since based on the
> arguments presented so far, their modern technology would cause them
> to be upset if he had posted just 10 messages.
That's not actually the complaint that we (or at least I) am making.
So I'd appreciate it if we could keep the strawmen out of the
discussion.
In fact, this has nothing to do, particularly, with GoogleGroups,
which is a tangent that you brought up, erroneously (since GG actually
*does* support threading - have you used it to know its interface?)
Additionally, several of us who have expressed being bothered by the
flood of posts have tried, clearly, to state that in fact it is
*exactly* the quantity and frequency that's the problem. 10 messages
would have been much, much cleaner, and assuming they were more
selected and edited, they'd have been much more useful to the group
and to Norm. (Heck, Norm going back and adding comments and thoughts,
however brief, to a lot of them was a big help. Thanks, Norm, for
staying constructive.)
> They are upset because they have nothing better to do, nothing to add
> to the discussion, and no decks of their own to post.
I don't know if you've noticed, but at least some of us have been
trying to put some signal back into the noise by adding to the actual
discussion on the few decks where there was something to say. Given
that, I don't think this is a fair characterization of what we're
stating, and I'm wondering where you've gotten that impression.
- D.J.
On 11 nov, 15:41, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Well said. I just wish that everyone who doesn't want to read
> XZealot's posts would have followed your advice to begin with.
>
FWIW one more time: I -do- want to read his posts. But in the format
he's presenting them now, they are useless to me (or, I reckon, any
non-veteran who might be reading this NG).
Sure, I will never post a deck here myself. I know my decks are far
from good given the standards here, and most of the advice I'll get
will likely involve cards I don't own anyway (and don't want to spend
money on at eBay). Besides, all I care about is if the decks I make
will be fun to play with/against on game night, I don't care about
optimal winning conditions.
But I like VTES a lot. I -want- to read about decks and learn about
card interaction from people who know/play more than me. Therefor, I
want to know why anyone posting a deck made that deck the way it is. I
want to make sense of it all, including the comments made by others.
But this way, it's all pretty elitist to me: some of you veterans get
everything Norm's doing from just his decklists, and he gets your
responses. The rest of us don't, and are being left out because of it.
"We" can never join in or even get something from reading these
threads. And that's a shame. And I think having a NG/forum where 90%
of the threads is entirely not for non-veterans will shy people away,
which would suck as this is the only non-website-based/overall-
available newsgroup about VTES.
That's part of the courtesy point I made earlier. If you're gonna post
on a fully open international board like this, make it so that most
VTES enthusiasts worldwide will be able to use/understand it and not
just a 'chosen few'. Even if this means writing extra stuff you
yourself would find unnessecary. Please take that little extra time
and effort.
On Nov 11, 7:26 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Not that that minority aren't worth> listening to -- I think they are....
A startling admission. Tell me, what made you turn around?
I don't think we can make claims about "a minority" or "a majority" no
matter how silent or moral or America hating/loving they may be. On
this newsgroup, you only hear the people that speak up. To that end,
if you hear a bunch of people saying, "Hey, can you please do this
slightly differently," it would be appropriate to take their wishes
into consideration considering that they:
1) Logged into this arcane program and read your post
2) Commended on it. Heck, if you show a modicum of respect, they might
follow up with more useful comments.
Now that my Qualifier announcement is buried on at least page
2(haven't exhumed it yet) from about 8 hours ago by junk decks, I can
see that Norm doesn't get it, or refuses to. Way to go Norm!
Brandon
On Nov 11, 4:26 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Could you give me an example of what starting a deck thread in a way
> which would work for most of the newsgroup readers in order to get
> them to have fun reading it would look like? Perhaps then I'll more
> clearly understand what everyone is complaining about and perhaps
> XZealot will be able to see how he could modify his posting habits.
It's been said several times over the last few days already. Basicly
it's about including some comments about the decks (results, flaws,
stuff that needs improvement etc) and also not posting 40 decks in two
days since that makes it more or less impossible to both read, think,
analyze and give useful feedback.
In my eyes, posting a decklist with no questions, comments or anything
is nothing but spam. It's like making a post that says "Immortal
Grapple + Claws of the Dead" and nothing else. Completely useless. And
yes, I can avoid reading the decklists (most times I do) but when so
many are posted at once it still gets quite annoying.
Meej wrote:
> "Kevin M." wrote:>> Well said. I just wish that everyone who doesn't want to read
>> XZealot's posts would have followed your advice to begin with.>
> And for those of us who would like to read XZealot's more useful
> posts that have something to contribute, but feel that he's losing> a signal-to-noise war with himself? Any advice there?
I really, honestly believe that there are only two things going on
with people who believe XZealot has a signal-to-noise ratio issue --
either they are using some less-appropriate method of reading the
newsgroup, or they really have nothing of value to contribute
regarding XZealot's deck postings.
I believe this to be the case because if they weren't using whatever
less-appropriate method of reading the newsgroup -- GoogleGroups,
say -- then they wouldn't have any reason to complain. Or, if they
still did, then it'd again be baseless on it's face, as I've already
stated.
(I understand some people can ONLY access the newsgroup with a less-
appropriate method. While I do sympathize with their situation,
their very minor issue of clicking a few extra times to obtain or view
the information they desire does not give them grounds for legitimate
complaining.)
If the issue is something to the effect of "XZealot, we really don't
understand why you are posting all these decks, and the reason we are
saying that is [REASON]." then I'd expect to have seen that stated
up-front rather than all the illegitimate posts which came after.
If you believe that these opinions of mine are invalid, or I'm missing
the point of what "spamming the newsgroup" and/or "signal to noise
ratio" means, I certainly accept that as a valid viewpoint. I also
do believe that the ability to communicate on a newsgroup -- indeed,
in any non-face-to-face format -- is severely limited and compromised
and either the OPs reaction to XZealot or my original reaction to the
OPs reaction could have been exxagerated or misinterpreted.
I suppose that's stating an obvious internet-truth, but I just wanted
to get that out there in an effort to spark understanding. ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 11, 5:10 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Meej wrote:
> > "Kevin M." wrote:
> >> Well said. I just wish that everyone who doesn't want to read
> >> XZealot's posts would have followed your advice to begin with.
>
> > And for those of us who would like to read XZealot's more useful
> > posts that have something to contribute, but feel that he's losing
> > a signal-to-noise war with himself? Any advice there?
>
> I really, honestly believe that there are only two things going on
> with people who believe XZealot has a signal-to-noise ratio issue --
> either they are using some less-appropriate method of reading the
> newsgroup, or they really have nothing of value to contribute
> regarding XZealot's deck postings.
this is my issue, there is no way to respond sensibly based on the
incomplete information supplied. You don't think maybe adding some
details and or history could help?
On 11 nov, 16:26, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Teeka wrote:
> > I'm not arguing Norm isn't using Usenet properly. Also, I too think
> > a new deck should get a new thread. The courtesey bit is realising
> > that:
> > a] most of the 'non-veteran' VTES players who would otherwise love
> > to read/join a discussion about decks, have no use of your threads
> > in their current format;
>
> What "format" is this we are discussing? I'm confused, I really don't
> understand what you are saying.
>
Let me start by saying sorry for not being all that clear all the
time. Unfortunately I'm not someone who's capable of getting his point
across in a short and clean fashion in my own language most of the
time anyway, and this gets worsened when I need to translate my
thoughts to English. Please know I always want a good, clean
discussion and I never intend to be deliberately vague, or whatever.
Hmm...as I'm reading this after posting my other post (where I try to
explain further my position as a 'non-veteran') and also after reading
what Henrik wrote, I think all I wanted to say has been said now,
really. It's all about giving people some very valuable extra
information, so that all will know what it is we're going to discuss,
even if a lot of that info might seem basic and self-explanatory to
you.
On a side note, I too think more than 10 (heck, 5) posts in one go is
overkill always. You can't expect people to think about all these
decks ideas and make valuable comments that way.
> > b] to these people, getting 30 of those posts a day is no fun
> > to the point of being straight out annoying;
>
> I find half of the posts here annoying. That's not a valid reason
> for all the commotion.
>
Sorry to hear that. :-) But I think that people should always be
allowed to voice their annoyance in a decent fashion (not like Zappo
did) and kindly ask for others to go about things a bit different.
> > c]not everyone can use a newsreader to filter your posts out,
> > even if they wanted to.
>
> I know MANY players whose main access to this newsgroup is at or
> through their work, and I don't hear them complaining. Just a small,
> unrepresentative minority.
Come on, it's the internet not a worldwide referendum. All you know is
the people that took the time and effort to post. You have no idea how
small or big this minority really is. And neither do I.
I hope my last post made it a bit clearer that I for one don't have a
problem with GG or the fact that Norm posts decks, but rather with the
way Norm posts his decks.
However, I have also tried to explain how the interaction between
these two might not do this NG (and the VTES community as a result)
any favors. Granted, that's my opinion based on a non-veteran's (sorry
for overuse of this stupid word) point of view. I have no data or
proof for anything, other than my own feelings.
Meej wrote:
> "Kevin M." wrote:>> The problem with "considering" the GoogleGroups users is that they
>> aren't upset because XZealot posted 20+ messages, since based on
>> the arguments presented so far, their modern technology would
>> cause them to be upset if he had posted just 10 messages.>> That's not actually the complaint that we (or at least I) am making.
> So I'd appreciate it if we could keep the strawmen out of the
> discussion.
>
> In fact, this has nothing to do, particularly, with GoogleGroups,
> which is a tangent that you brought up, erroneously (since GG
> actually *does* support threading - have you used it to know its
> interface?)
In the OPs reply to my reply, he clearly states that he is using
GoogleGroups and by XZealot posting all the messages, the user has
to go through "page after page" and that is the issue he had.
So, no strawman. Yes, I know how to use GG. Perhaps you can teach
the OP who doesn't seem to know how to use its threading?
> Additionally, several of us who have expressed being bothered by
> the flood of posts have tried, clearly, to state that in fact it is
> *exactly* the quantity and frequency that's the problem. 10 messages
> would have been much, much cleaner,
How would 10 rather than 30 posts have been "cleaner"? Given (at the
time) XZealot's lack of comments within his posts, a lesser amount
could not have been interpretted any easier or more intelligently.
Perhaps if you tell me how fewer posts of the exact same type would
have been "cleaner" then I'd be less confused?
> and assuming they were more selected and edited,
Ahhh. So for you, it isn't an interface issue, as it clearly was with
the OP, it's a content issue. At least XZealot is now improving his
desk post content. So, problem solved -- assuming the next time he
posts 30 content-laden posts, no one complains. ;)
>> They are upset because they have nothing better to do, nothing
>> to add to the discussion, and no decks of their own to post.>
> I don't know if you've noticed, but at least some of us have been
> trying to put some signal back into the noise by adding to the
> actual discussion on the few decks where there was something to say.
> Given that, I don't think this is a fair characterization of what
> we're stating, and I'm wondering where you've gotten that
> impression.
You and others have clearly improved your position, so I have nothing
left to say, really, as the situation seems to have mostly resolved.
[ quoted text not captured ]
brandonsantacruz wrote:
> "Kevin M." wrote:>> Not that that minority aren't worth
>> listening to -- I think they are....>
> A startling admission. Tell me, what made you turn around?
You have erred.
There was no turn around, as my many posts prove.
[ quoted text not captured ]
henrik wrote:
> "Kevin M." Wrote:>> Could you give me an example of what starting a deck thread in a
>> way which would work for most of the newsgroup readers in order
>> to get them to have fun reading it would look like? Perhaps then
>> I'll more clearly understand what everyone is complaining about
>> and perhaps XZealot will be able to see how he could modify his
>> posting habits.>
> It's been said several times over the last few days already. Basicly
> it's about including some comments about the decks (results, flaws,
> stuff that needs improvement etc) and also not posting 40 decks in
> two days since that makes it more or less impossible to both read,
> think, analyze and give useful feedback.
For those people who are unable to read, think, analyze, and/or give
useful feedback when 40 decks are posted, I would let you know that
newsgroup posts last FOREVER, so it is not necessary to read, think,
analyze, and/or give useful feedback immediately. There are many
users here who regularly post once a day, and other post once a week,
and others once or twice a month. So, no rush. :)
> In my eyes, posting a decklist with no questions, comments or
> anything is nothing but spam. It's like making a post that says
> "Immortal Grapple + Claws of the Dead" and nothing else. Completely
> useless. And yes, I can avoid reading the decklists (most times
> I do) but when so many are posted at once it still gets quite
> annoying.
I've been told that XZealot has added commentary to his posts,
so hopefully the problem is solved.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Nov 11, 5:34 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> henrik wrote:
> > "Kevin M." Wrote:
> >> Could you give me an example of what starting a deck thread in a
> >> way which would work for most of the newsgroup readers in order
> >> to get them to have fun reading it would look like? Perhaps then
> >> I'll more clearly understand what everyone is complaining about
> >> and perhaps XZealot will be able to see how he could modify his
> >> posting habits.
>
> > It's been said several times over the last few days already. Basicly
> > it's about including some comments about the decks (results, flaws,
> > stuff that needs improvement etc) and also not posting 40 decks in
> > two days since that makes it more or less impossible to both read,
> > think, analyze and give useful feedback.
>
> For those people who are unable to read, think, analyze, and/or give
> useful feedback when 40 decks are posted, I would let you know that
> newsgroup posts last FOREVER, so it is not necessary to read, think,
> analyze, and/or give useful feedback immediately. There are many
> users here who regularly post once a day, and other post once a week,
> and others once or twice a month. So, no rush. :)
Sure, those same arguments can as well leads to not posting all decks
at once though. There's no need to fill the entire first page of
google groups with your decks in 5 minutes.
Either way, posting them a few each time probably makes it more likely
to get useful feedback on all of them. I think both of us can agree
that not many people will go back to a deck posted 4-5 weeks ago, read
it and comment.
> > In my eyes, posting a decklist with no questions, comments or
> > anything is nothing but spam. It's like making a post that says
> > "Immortal Grapple + Claws of the Dead" and nothing else. Completely
> > useless. And yes, I can avoid reading the decklists (most times
> > I do) but when so many are posted at once it still gets quite
> > annoying.
>
> I've been told that XZealot has added commentary to his posts,
> so hopefully the problem is solved.
Yeah, he's been doing much better since the poststorm wars. And I
think getting a discussion about how do post useful decklists is
bigger thing than just Xzealot, even if he's the most frequent
decklister around here.
On 11 nov, 17:20, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm...as I'm reading this after posting my other post (where I try to
> explain further my position as a 'non-veteran') and also after reading
> what Henrik wrote, I think all I wanted to say has been said now,
> really.
...Except that most of those things were not said in this thread, but
that other thread started by Zappo. Sorry.
I'd love for the 'deck posting info checklist' Blooded Sand mentions
there, to be a template of some sorts. Would be very much appreciated.
On Nov 11, 11:26 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Meej wrote:> > In fact, this has nothing to do, particularly, with GoogleGroups,
> > which is a tangent that you brought up, erroneously (since GG
> > actually *does* support threading - have you used it to know its
> > interface?)
>
> In the OPs reply to my reply, he clearly states that he is using
> GoogleGroups
True. Somehow I'd missed that when I skimmed to try to figure out why
you were talking specifically about GG.
> and by XZealot posting all the messages, the user has
> to go through "page after page" and that is the issue he had.
By XZealot posting all the messages *in separate threads*. Which, as
LSJ and others have pointed out, is actually the appropriate way to do
so, as it makes the conversation about any one of those decks easier
to follow.
> So, no strawman. Yes, I know how to use GG. Perhaps you can teach
> the OP who doesn't seem to know how to use its threading?
Wouldn't help, as the messages weren't put into a thread. They were
put into 30 separate ones. (In fact, I'm not sure GoogleGroups can be
used *non*-threaded.)
- D.J.