[Suggest] Howard [Finished]

ok...this really isn't the place to get into what i'm going to say
so i'm going to PM you

Well that's rather pointless, I don't want to argue for the sake of arguing so whatever.

(08-28-2008 08:48 AM)bubbleman Wrote:  That's a flaw with the definition of proper reasoning, not with the rule itself. That's what I'm getting at. Proper reasoning still is and should be required. But web made it way to easy to make silly reasons, which should be fixed. We still want people to provide reasoning though and if people aren't dicks about it, things *should* turn out fine.

The way web defined it is best. If we'd just left it as "proper reasoning" it'd have been subjective as hell to the reader.

I don't get why everyone is fucking whining about it, you're acting like I do that kind of shit all the time. Or like you're acting like it was my only reasoning. Think of that as my "backup" reasoning, if for whatever reason the mods didn't find the first reasoning appropriate(which would be bullshit but whatever), then I have the lowly slime can trade with khrima thing to fall back on it.

The problem which it seems the rules are failing to address was that people would just waltz into the thread, vote, and never be heard from again. I BELIEVE (I wasn't one of the original people on IRC that discussed these rules) the idea was to make doing that impossible. Unfortunately: the time delay seems to be only just that, the forced reasoning along with your vote a burden, and in the end we still have no official means of discounting a vote based on grounds of bad logic or stubbornness.

We also seem to be having issues with the limit on balances, the new voting format (seriously what happened? It worked great when it wasn't required...), and the limit on the balancing format of only change or no change with no reliable middle ground.

Did I miss anything?

EDIT: Just a note as long as I'm thinking of it: if we could discount votes, we wouldn't need the 24 hour time delay as anyone voting for a change based solely on the OP would be able to be discounted if the OP was proved to be flawed and the person/people in question never came back to clarify their position.

Noodle's reason is fine, now back on topic guys.

Noodle, it's not just you I'm talking about. There are quite a few people who pull stuff like that and I think it's a problem. I didn't mention any names or anything it that post.

Vote: Change Howard

Yeah, it had completely slipped my mind that Howard's ability could give creatures life even if they're not damaged. That indeed seems to be a tiny bit overpowered in comparison to Ardam.

Vote: Nerf
I agree with Andriex

Vote: Keep as is

'Cause the ability isn't overpowered really. I mean, the +10 life at the cost of one mana and dizzying each turn isn't hardly that much of a threat. You talk about lifebar, but Radd costs 7. Most decks should be able to deal with a little 3 cost creature, and besides, there are easier ways to abuse lifebar than howard.

Compared to ardam, Howard is perhaps a little stronger, but I hardly feel that he is grossly overpowered.

I agree with Andriex.

Vote: Change

(8) Change: masamunemaniac, moonfish, Bubbleman, Enatai, Blue Elite, Andriex, Nolder, Aldgar Omk
(5) No Change: Noodle, ChrisAsmadi, Jessica Stryker, Serith, Vincent

Consensus: As 2/3 majority was not reached, Howard shall remain the same.