I hardly think this is really a BAN discussion. While some people are talking about it the theme of the tread is productive in talking about how he affects the game and what can be done about it. Its not a flame war and its not people yelling fire, its been nothing but a viable thread, the likes of which the forums are here for.

Shocking abuse of power for someone who isn't even a moderator yet. I don't see why this topic should be locked/closed.

I think that JT3 really does need to go for the reasons that Mr. Ray has already stated. There is literally NO COUNTER to him other than just constantly attacking. I really think that he needs to go, just because of how much he breaks the rules of the game.

Failed2k for president.

That is all.

Protoaddict said:

From the OP:

" And now I'm going to say the forbidden phrase on the old board.

In this current incarnation, I believe J.T should be banned from competitive play "

Say what now?

"Shocking abuse of power for someone who isn't even a moderator yet. I don't see why this topic should be locked/closed.

I think that JT3 really does need to go for the reasons that Mr. Ray has already stated. There is literally NO COUNTER to him other than just constantly attacking. I really think that he needs to go, just because of how much he breaks the rules of the game."

-> "Shocking abuse of power! I don't see why this should be locked. BTW, Ban ban ban ban ban ban."

Right, OK.

Tagrineth said:

'k.

Tagrineth said:

So if I express my feelings on where the card belongs in a disscussion about the card, it becomes a ban thread and gets "lol locked"

What a joke, this is probably the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard, THIS IS A FORUM ABOUT DISCUSSING OUR CARD GAME.

We were informed we could have a discussion about cards if we did it in a civil point oriented manner, these points also involve our opinions about these things, by locking this thread you take away a halfway decent thread, that has the opinion of a player.

Literally one person could just derail any thread by saying "I think it should be banned" and get it locked. It's stupid, are you trying to say that because I started the thread, I shouldn't of voiced my opinion on the state of the card.

Thats ridiculous, and I will fight this kicking and screaming if I have to.

failed2k said:

I'll do you one better, and perhaps prove something to myself and maybe others.

But you'll know on monday.

I think JT*** is alright, 'specially when i'm fighting him stacked with JT** and his 9 handsize. Charge your lazers and High Plasma pew pew for the kill! Otherwise, just beat on the brat with a basebal bat.

Canadian_Megaman_Prime said:

Ramones ftw.

I know it seems controversial but this is what Tag said on the other fourms:

Seriously, guys. Cut that kind of discussion out.

For one, everyone is plain sick of it. Not just mods, but other users too.

For another, it gives a VERY bad signal to new players coming in and half the threads they see are people clamoring to ban/errata cards - suggesting that the format is screwed and the game is imbalanced, which makes people not want to play.

After tonight, if I see any future topic on banning/errataing cards, there's a very good chance I'll delete that thread, too, unless it puts forth a VERY strong argument (something to the effect of pointing out US Air Base + Quick to Anger).

Consider that a new board rule. No more discussion about banning or errataing cards on General Discussion.

If you want to point out cards that have serious interaction issues - such as the aforementioned US Air Base / Quick to Anger - or other problems, there are significantly better ways to do it.

Most importantly, what you should be doing is raising your concern to your local scout and have them post it on the Scout board. That's one of the purposes of the scout board, after all. If you don't have a local scout, I'm sure there are a few on this board who would post it on your behalf if you PM them.

Thanks for your understanding.

I can understand the reasoning for this but Omar makes a good point as well. From the old forums:

ok deep breath everyone.

my stance on the subject is as follows:

-thread titles calling for ban/errata will be changed to something along the lines of "Discussing ______"
-if the first post by the OP is not a discussion, but rather a rant/whine/complaint about a card they deem overpowered and cannot overcome, then it will be deleted. the proper way to rant about a card that is too strong is to e-mail those in charge.


that's as far as i'm willing to take it. i know the sharing of knowledge is important. if someone has a problem with a card, opening a discussion to see what help there is for it is a great idea.

posting these type of threads (ban/errata) is equivalent to me yelling at the grocer for charging me tax. what good will that do? he's got no power over it, so why complain to him? that's what e-mailing the people in charge is for.


i really think people are going overboard on both sides of this issue.

relax.

Please consider that both sides do have a point in some way or another. This discussion may be turning out to be a ban thread, but at least there is meaningful discussion and reasoning behind it.

Zero Cross said:

I dunno, only thing I can garner from this is that Tag should never have left the Q&A forums.

Lol, its just forbidden in GD. have fun guys

Captain Ren said:

Ban talks on trade forums?

Like I said previously, the OP should've probably been submitted to an FFG employee. What good does it do on General Discussion?

You guys do realise that unlike STG, FFG does NOT read these boards normally!

If you really feel a card should be banned, this is the wrong place to present your argument.

"I'll do you one better, and perhaps prove something to myself and maybe others.

But you'll know on monday."

Is that a threat to retaliate against this thread being locked or something? Cause, you know, that's really not a good idea.

"I dunno, only thing I can garner from this is that Tag should never have left the Q&A forums."

I get it, you don't like me. fine, you don't have to... but bear in mind, if it hadn't been me with the "ultimatum", it would've been Omar, Brian, or possibly an FFG exec (though that would've taken much longer...). So, what was your point exactly?

Tagrineth said:

2 points -

1) Wanna know what I'd have done? Repost the same thread removing ALL the ban references in the OP. If it stays, it was a valid discussion and we really need to chill out on the whole "Let's ban ban topics." If it goes, then it wasn't. No harm no foul because hey let's face it I'm pretty much a joke on here.

2) Look at your reaction, look at Omar's AS QUOTED FROM THE POST. One censors the post entirely, the other censors the part of the post that is against the rules, yet lets it live. Which one is the correct reaction? The one that gives you guys less work, or the one that makes it so that the discussion can continue. We might have gotten around to actually learning how to deal with this character were it not for your timely intervention.

And the fact that I have to go to Omar for ruling clarifications 'cause you don't answer your PMs doesn't help you in this regard.

Homme Chapeau said:

1. 'kay, that's fine. Note though that the OP even referred to the embargo on ban discussion, for crying out loud. seemingly the entire purpose of this thread was to rally support for banning the card - do you disagree based on the OP?

2. I said earlier that I would lock this thread, not even delete it.

"3." I answered at least 98% of the PMs I ever received on the old FFG board. Looking at my PM in and out boxes, it seems you've only ever sent me two PMs - one of them resulted in a back-and-forth that lasted through four replies, and, yes, I'm sorry, but I did miss one PM you sent me at one point. I'd hardly say that qualifies me as someone who "doesn't answer his PMs". I failed to respond to one - guess that makes me antisocial or something, eh?

Tagrineth said:

1) First post I made in this : Ban him or don't, I don't care. Just outlined reasons why he's strong. At least IIRC. I disagree on locking this because we'd moved PAST that - well, until a few offending posts arrived. Seriously (and this goes out to a lot of you out there), we have to TOE the line. Not cross it.

2) Lock/delete is kind of the same, considering locked threads can no longer be posted in, they thus go into the dreaded hell that is page 2, further on page 3 until they're completely forgotten.

3) So? Anecdotal, for me, says you don't answer your PMs. Granted, anecdotal does not equal factual, but including the back and forth we had, that's 20% of my PMs not answered. Let's play with numbers more and say that out of the two times you or I were in communication, only once was it answered, so that makes 50%. What does that tell you? I can count (not very well). What does it have to do with this? Uh nothing.

Plus, add to that the post of "no ban discussion evah" which was poorly received (exception those who pretty much pleaded for such a measure in the first place) until Omar and Antigoth posted onto it doesn't say you're anti-social : You wouldn't have been a mod if you were. Just that you MAY be about as socially inept as I am.

Also, this argument serves the purpose of one thing - washing dirty laundry in public is not awesome, and so we need PMs 'cause my e-mail inbox is already plenty flooded right now.

The point of this post was not to promote the banning of JT. Jeremy used those words in a satirical manner. As Hatman said, he was outlining the strengths of the card and opened the door for discussion

HolyDragonCloud said:

When it comes to bannings, you must be condescending to other players in your satire otherwise IT IS A TRUE BAN REQUEST.

Homme Chapeau said:

Quoted for truth.

Anyways, people need to grow up and put your pitchforks and torches away.

That's my troll post for the day.

Cheers,

Brad

B-Rad said:

Don't forget kids, it apply on BOTH sides

B-Rad said:

Editted for maximum justice.

Tag: You are the most meticulous rules arbiter in my eyes, but, as you've told me, "you're reading into this too much." This isn't like a Q&A ruling with only one answer; arguments and points of view can't just be summarily dismissed based upon what they represent. After all, didn't you say that you wouldn't lock any threads if the OP provides a compelling and well-thought-out argument? In what ways does this OP fail to accomplish that? Before you extinguish this thread, can you at least consider alternatives like editting the OP's direct and indirect references to banning J. Talbain3? Have all the mods agreed on this action? This thread has potential. Can't you just delete the derailment crap and give it another chance until the thread unequivocally crosses the line or perhaps dies of its own rite?

Man Hat: "Why so serious?" I was going to say some other stuff, but you're cognizant and passive enough to have already appreciated my sentiment.

Myself: Dur... Splunge! (fail is not recognizing a simple RAB reference)

Thanks for the edit there Ctr But truthfully I meant everyone. Ol' Hatty and Tag were b**chin like twelve year olds.

WTH!/OMG! this forum is made of multiple failures... I couldn't edit my post or post for too long lol. Admiral Ren, "why so similar?????" That is just uncanny. I was typing my message way before you posted and did not dare refresh.

I'm going to return to a happier point in my life and watch digimon soon... *sigh*

ctr2yellowbird said:

wait.. i'm not sure i can follow you anymore... i'm quite confused. why am i similar? admiral? digimon? why are we killing this topic?

yes, no edit buttong after 5 minutes just ruins everything

.. why so jaguar?????