MTG Commander/Elder Dragon Highlander
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/

Rules Discussion forum rules
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15686
Page 3 of 3

Author:  MrCool [ 2017-May-03 6:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rules Discussion forum rules

Nazotchi wrote:
1 and 2 contradict each other. Either something breaks the rules or it doesn't. Otherwise it just leads to favoritism in banning and infractions. Or whatever system you use.

Here is an example of 2 not contradicting 1: Eager Cadet is a shittier version of Akrasan Squire.
Essentially any cursing is fine that isn't directed toward a person to bully them.

Author:  Mr Degradation [ 2017-May-03 6:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rules Discussion forum rules

MrCool wrote:
Nazotchi wrote:
1 and 2 contradict each other. Either something breaks the rules or it doesn't. Otherwise it just leads to favoritism in banning and infractions. Or whatever system you use.

Here is an example of 2 not contradicting 1: Eager Cadet is a shittier version of Akrasan Squire.
Essentially any cursing is fine that isn't directed toward a person to bully them.


To further clarify (this looks like a really fun opportunity), the nature of vulgarity generally has to do with the intentions of the poster, when made obvious. The overall guidelines for the forum are "Don't be malicious or stupid."

To demonstrate, I'm going to use myself so that I'm (hopefully) not violating the guidelines- using my Ephara deck thread (which isn't RD, but where the distinction would be just as important.)

"Ephara, God of the Polis is a shitty commander choice for a Solar Flare build- because without access to black, you lose out on Unburial Rites- not to mention powerhouses like Sepulchral Primordial and Shriekmaw! I feel that playing Flare without swamps is like trying to get shit-faced from a jug of apple juice, and you would be far better served by an Orzhov or Esper commander like Ghost Council of Orzhova or Dromar, the Banisher."


The intention here is to describe my deck as being shoddy, and suggest a change which I may have overlooked. The next one however, inspite of not having conventional profanity, is quite inflammatory.

"What even is this mess?

You must feel so cool, playing a cheap general like Ephara as your commander. You smug control players always sicken me, trying to just not play Magic with the rest of us; and trying to stick more lands into your decks so that you don't have to play real cards. Mr. Degradation, you're obviously a miserable coal-powered scrublord who doesn't know the first thing about EDH."


Now, neither of these posts are necessarily wrong (even if I find them both disagreeable- which isn't a mod's problem.) The difference being, the intentions of post A were obviously to be critical of the deck, but to not make assumptions about my person or play-skill. Just a commentary on how they feel a deck like that should function, with something constructive to add to the conversation.

Post B on the otherhand obviously had the intention of tearing down my deck idea, and then correlating to me as a player, and poster. This post uses phrases that aren't traditionally vulgar, but in such a way that they have quite a bit of vitriol.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/