IMPORTANT QUESTIONNAIRE: Article Standards

[Istanbul]

Okay, since the public forum idea seems to work well, let's get your (collective) opinions on these:

1) Should our front page feature articles that are not about M:TG? (My current standard: No.)

2) Should non-M:TG content be kept in articles to be posted on the front page? (My current standard: To a very limited degree.)

3) At what point do decklists become unsuitable? (My current standard: if 50% of the article is decklist, it gets the old 'better posted in the Decks section'.)

 

[Chaos Turtle]

1) I think the articles should be Magic-related, yes.
Just what qualifies as Magic-related is what might be at issue. Given that this is a "casual-oriented" website, there should be a little leeway given, as long as the article pertains to the CPA, or Magic in general.
My notion of relevancy:

YES: A regular (weekly, bi-weekly) columnist posts an article that seems to have more to do with his/her personal life than Magic, but does manage to draw parallels between the two. (Wakefield did this all the time, one reason why he was so popular.)

NO: A rambling article about "this cool trade I got on my way to the dentist, right ebfore the tournament I scrubbed out in, about which I will now tell you, using sentance fragments to describe what happened each round."

...

2) Absolutely, as long as the information is not totally irrelevant to the article.

YES: A well-written tournament report that includes details of what the writer did before, after, or between rounds. (These are more interesting than Round 1: blah-blah-blabbity-blah, I'm so good, blah.)

NO: An article about DCI's banning policies and their effects - good or ill - on the casual tournament scene, and why I accidentally voted for Pat Buchanon.

...

3) A decklist article should contain the following (not necessarily all, but most):

[*]At least ONE version of the decklist.
[*]An explanation of why each card was used, and why others were not.
[*]A tournament report which shows how the deck performs, OR
[*]A scenario showing how the deck functions in whatever environment it's intended for (for those writers who write about multiplayer games).
[*]Perhaps some commentary on how the deck idea came about in the first place.

I like to come up with deck ideas based upon completely speculative notions of what new card in a just-released set will be good. An article like this is okay as long as there is plenty of description about what the deck does, how it might be played, and alternate card choices, etc.

In short, it should be informative and well-written, with more than just a decklist and a few lines about how cool you think it is (we have a decks forum for this purpose).

...

In all of these cases, I think that more leeway should be given to regular columnists, and/or if the writing is particularly entertaining.

I'm not sure how you guys have this set up, but if there are two submissions editors and one of you comes upon an article that he doesn't think should be posted, is it possible to pass it along to the other for a second opinion?

 

[Gizmo]

I think 'editorial discretion' is a very important phrase here. Why do we need rules, surely we can judge each article on it`s merits?
For what it`s worth I would disagree in part with every one of your statements, Istanbul. Chaos Turtle was much closer to the mark.

 

[DÛke]

...accroding to Chaos Turtle, articles about the CPA are "okay"? Or is that me just delusionizing again?

 

[Ransac]

MY opinion

1:no, this site was created for casual Magic players, however, by all means, that doesn't mean that you can't post threads about other topics.

2:If it goes with the topic on Magic the article is posting, yes.

3:When there are more than people care to read about. I'd say if there are more the two decklists, the article should be posted in Casual Decks forum.


Ransac, cpa trash man

P.S. also a casual player

 

[arhar]

1) Should our front page feature articles that are not about M:TG? (My current standard: No.)


Yes and no. The only articles that should be rejected (imo) are the articles that have nothing to do with Magic OR CPA.


2) Should non-M:TG content be kept in articles to be posted on the front page? (My current standard: To a very limited degree.)


No. I guess it's just a matter of personal belief here, but look at the best writers out there: Jamie Wakefield, John Rizzo, Ferret (notice all of them are casual writers). A lot of the material in their articles have nothing to do with Magic. As long as it's good writing, and it's linked to Magic somehow, I think it should not be cut out.


3) At what point do decklists become unsuitable? (My current standard: if 50% of the article is decklist, it gets the old 'better posted in the Decks section'.)


I agree.

 

[theorgg]

1) Should our front page feature articles that are not about M:TG? (My current standard: No.)

Yes. However, If the article is OBVIOUSLY not of interest to the general interest of the CPA, namly Gamers and Ex-gamers(yes, there are some-I know), then cut them. As Turtle explained "how I voted for a racist named buchanan" shouldn't, unless the title was a reference to somthing else in the article.

As a rough estimate on the potential content, anything that isn't at least 40% Magic OR CPA related should probably be cut; though don't delete it, cut-and-paste the article into an E-mail and type an address into your browser to get out of the article without "delete or post" being activated; I did that quite a bit when I actually had more time than an hour on the weekdays and two on the weekends, and asked for a re-submission of an article that was broken off or just not long enough but had a good concept. Only one of those people never re-submitted.


2) Should non-M:TG content be kept in articles to be posted on the front page? (My current standard: To a very limited degree.)


As I said again, If 40% of the article is Magic related and the rest is good wrighting(such as some of TomB's older articles) then put it up. By your current standards, articles like my Treatese on... <tournament> would be cut to less than four pages, that would NOT be good. Most people here were brought up on Wakefield, or were weaned by our supiriors to the King's wrighting after his wrighting perished from the editor's "inbox." If your standards were applied to Wakefield... let's throw off that thought...


3) At what point do decklists become unsuitable? (My current standard: if 50% of the article is decklist, it gets the old 'better posted in the Decks section'.)


Decklists should be counted as a paragraph. If an article is under three paragraphs, with a paragraph being approximatly five-six sentances that go across the page once(approximatly fifteen words each sentance), then it wouldn't be sufficient. However, If the decklist was listed like this:

23mountains(I have no ports)
2Jamedae Tomb(In this slowish inviroment, two cards in the late game can pull you through a game easily)
1"Shotgun"[aladin's ring](When the burn wears out in the very late game-It happens-this can pull you through. It also kills the pro-red d*cks tha fly around)
4"Insanious Golem"[ob-si-an-us golem](six toughness is the toughness for a creature to have and it isn't marred by chill or story circle!)
2 Urza's Et cetera...

Then followed by a paragraph that tells how to play it and possible sideboard choices according to the decks you might expect somone to see so they could put a sideboard together fairly eisily..

would be an O.K. format-the (blabla) would count for another paragraph if the ideas were explained very well. count "revised" decklists as are somtimes seen as half-a-paragraph, since quite a few people like to give two or three revised decklists, though if the reasonings behind them are not present, don't. Get what I'm saying?



WHEW! that was quite a bit to type.

Sic semper,

 

[Istanbul]

Okay. So, here's what I'm getting from all this:


1) Any article that's at least partially about Magic OR the CPA should be posted. However, you favor cutting articles that have nothing to do with Magic whatsoever.

2) You generally seem to want at least half the content to be about Magic.

3) You believe that decklists are fine, so long as they're part of an article.



I guess my big question on #3 is articles like one I had to nuke in the latest batch. He basically said 'blah blah, this one wins me a lot of tournaments, etc.' for about three sentences, gave a decklist, and that's it.

3a) Do you (collectively) feel that this article should be posted?

3b) Do you believe that a decklist should only be posted if it contains some analysis of the deck itself?

 

[Ura]

1) Should our front page feature articles that are not about M:TG? (My current standard: No.)

I think that any article thats about either magic or the CPA should be posted with equal respect, however articles that have nothing to do with either of these in any way are much more up to editor discretion.

2) Should non-M:TG content be kept in articles to be posted on the front page? (My current standard: To a very limited degree.)

Yes, I think that keeping full content is very important to most articles. There are obviously certain situations where some stuff would have to be cut, but I like to believe that we can remain broad minded about just how far off content is or how un-acceptable in some cases.

3) At what point do decklists become unsuitable? (My current standard: if 50% of the article is decklist, it gets the old 'better posted in the Decks section'.)

I personally am not a fan of deck lists or tourny reports for that matter as there are few writers who can really capture enough feeling to make them interesting beyond basic statistics.
However if someone writes an article about a certain archtype or card and provides reasonings and theory along with a decklist, then yes, I think its acceptable.

For 3a and 3b see my answer to 3 and draw your conclusions.

Miya! >^-^<

 

[Chaos Turtle]

In my opinion...

An article which is nothing more thamn a decklinst accompanied by a few sentences ought to go in the 'Decks' Forum.

Only decklists which are part of a comprehensive review of that deck are really worthy of article space. (see my above post for a description of what I would consider a "comprehensive review")

 

[TomB]

Thanks Orgg!

Time for my .02 I guess...

1) Should our front page feature articles that are not about M:TG? (My current standard: No.)

I agree with the general consensus, that our articles should either be Magic related or about the CPA. The only problem I can see with CPA related articles is that, since the eyes of the Magic world do seem to be upon us we'd be effectively airing our dirty laundry in front of the world, so I think some discretion should be used, and if we go to the "Feature Article" idea they should be relegated to secondary spot whenever applicable.


2) Should non-M:TG content be kept in articles to be posted on the front page? (My current standard: To a very limited degree.)

Again, I go along with the consensus. I do not think it's bad to have related off-topic stuff thrown in at all - in fact, I think it can add a tremendous amount of depth to an article if it's done right.

It's strictly a judgement call as to whether an editor feels there's some relevance, however. In that regard I'd suggest keeping an open mind, and remembering that Magic players are just Gamers with a little more focus .



3) At what point do decklists become unsuitable? (My current standard: if 50% of the article is decklist, it gets the old 'better posted in the Decks section'.)

This, I think, is where I reckon I disagree with the group. With the exception of a contest like Dune Echo's I'd say that I'd prefer we did not print tourney reports or decklists, unless they're the lesser part of any article, and the article itself is really entertaining. I have nothing against a guy like Houts, but I think a CASUAL Magic site shouldn't feature PTQ tourney reports.

Isn't there enough of that stuff out there on the net?

I wholeheartedly agree with your initial policy on this one, Istanbul, and I have no problem with your decision to cut the example article you mentioned.

And in any case I'd recommend the policy Orgg talked about, unless you truly feel the attempt isn't worth the effort. Remember, we're dealing with amateur (read as "unpaid") talent here, so a little coaching here and there could pay off with big dividends down the road a piece.

I also think the people who are doing the writing should be taking notes here. If what you're about to submit isn't up to the standards being discussed in this thread you should feel obligated not to waste our editors time. Instead, revise/rewrite the piece before you submit it.

Please remember, our editors are unpaid talent too .

 

[Gizmo]

Agrees with Turtle again:

3a) Right back and suggest they put some analysis in, don`t just outright refuse it. Offer constructrive advice so they can improve the article to a publishable standard.

3b) In general, yes.

 

[Apollo]

I agree with CT, Orgg, et al. However, I would like to add something that's sorta related:

Please, no more play variants!

There is a section for decks and variants. Any article that is nothing but a description of a variant should be stuck in that section; I don't see why people seem to feel that their variant is too good for the variants forum; they think it must go on the front page.

Is anyone else tired of these on the front page, or am I an exception?

Note: that wasn't an attack on anyone in particular, just those articles in general.

 

[Duel]

IMHO, there are 3 qualities which make an article suitable:

1. Must relate in some way to the topic, M:tg. But alot qualifies. the interview with Mageta on starcity qualified....

2. Must be edited. sorry. but here's where my annoying, english-expert side comes up. It must be readable, and appropriate.

3. Must be something that is better on the front page than somewhere else. Something people shuold see. I've seen several posts that I think would make great articles. I've also seen several articles that I would have respected more as posts. I agree about the formats, there is a section for those, please use it.

 

[Istanbul]

4) Should profanity be allowed?

My current standard: Under no circumstances is profanity to be allowed. This includes f*ck, sh*t, @ss, b!tch, d@mn, and other similar words. My reasoning is that children can/will see these articles.

 

[Apollo]

Just **** it. I haven't seen a case yet where profanity added something important to the article.

 

[Duel]

No, and I hope it never will....

 

[Ura]

4) Should profanity be allowed?

No, there should be no reason for profanity as anything that could use it to explain something usually has other available words that do the same job if not better.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Generally, I don't think there is any particular reason for profanity.

But as usual, this is not a one-size-fits-all issue.

YES: "So after his flyers beat the crap out of me, I flipped over the top card of my library, looking for the Canopy Surge that would have saved me. It wasn't there, so I flipped the next one, and the next one...

Then I looked in my sideboard. There it was.

Damn."

NO: "So I layed out my 'Derm and commenced to whip his ass, so bad in fact that the little b!tch went ond whined to everyone about how the big mean man had beat the lving sh!t out of his even tohugh he's just a little newbie. Newbies... f*** 'em."

...

On the issue of play variants Apollo brought up: These should follow the guidelines I mentioned for decklists. They must be original and discussed in-depth, and should probably include an example of how a game would go using this variant.

 

[Duel]

The key is, I think, in the editros discretion. Trust these guys! They're generally pretty smart! (Excpet when Ed changed the design )