Your View: New Magic Rules (Vote!)

[OldeTymer 323]

Everyone who disagrees with this new rule has provided superb reasoning, whether it be more personal or overall and more generally constructive, 95% which I agree with, myself.

I offer this suggestion, however:

Since the majority of the server disagrees with this rule, boycott it. The Druidic Order (as I'm sure other groups of magic did) ignored the rule and continued on our merry way with teaching how we always have, and look what happened - a 'leniency' list was created. So, I repeat to the overwhelming majority of the server who disagree with this rule, boycott it. If no one follows this rule, it cannot be enforced because 90% of the server is not going to be banned over such a stupid idea that, as has been reflected, even many staff members disagree with.

[Neri 3590]

It's all way too convoluted to the average player. What's the damn point of making a rule if you just double back and create convoluted nuances to it?

 

K . I . S . S .

[Wendigo 786]

*Austin nods* K.I.S.S

[Nekkore 641]

Well this seems quite self explanatory as the majority of people agree that this rule should be removed. It really should. I don't see the logic in it, all I'm seeing is a lot of cons.

[KarmaDelta 969]

Won't be changed because who cares about the player base anyways when one can push their own agenda without player support in the first place?

[luv 3469]

Won't be changed because who cares about the player base anyways when one can push their own agenda without player support in the first place?

I don't think that is the /best/ way to go about this, but I do see what you mean. 

[Wendigo 786]

I'd like to think that since not a single person has come forward with a single legitimate reason why this should be a thing, and the OVERWHELMING vote count, that this will be removed. 

[luv 3469]

I'd like to think that since not a single person has come forward with a single legitimate reason why this should be a thing, and the OVERWHELMING vote count, that this will be removed. 

It should be removed, i've stated this a bunch of times about but this will probably be it. The rule makes no logical sense for it's intended purpose. It's not going to solve the problem, but it will create more. The people don't want it simple as that. 

[James 425]

Fewer teachers means fewer students means more magical elitism means more cliques, more collectors, and more braggarts.

 

I am sorry but the new TA rule is currently nothing but limiting the teachers of magic and possibly students. It will just result in more and more magicks getting axed because of inactivity. For example, I currently have a TA for fore evocation. I still want to teach others Mental Magic and Voidal Shifting. But now, I have to deciede one since this new rule just popped up randomly.

I agree with both of these statements, and disagree with this decision. The limiting of magics that can be taught will only increase the holding of magics within groups, and slowly make magics that have less teachers more inactive until they're removed like the staff have done with previous magic types that I was apart of and witnessed myself. I wholeheartedly disagree with this, and I mean hell, teach only should still be a thing in my eyes so to me this is the opposite extreme. 

[KarmaDelta 969]

It's all a ploy so that the server can get of more magics.

The less people who know fire evocation, means that they can get rid of them too for example.

 

Horrible play my dear Slice, the ruse was seen through, so you can revert it now.

You would make a horrible Sith Lord.

 

 

[Murdervish 308]

I simply just don't understand the point. If the idea behind Slic3's logic is...

Limit magic teaching > Make more ancillary magics decrease in activity > Remove the ancillary magics with activity decrease as an excuse > Reduce collectivism since there are fewer collectables

...then staff should just wipe out the magics they don't like immediately, rather than put the players and the teachers through this stress of trying to preserve the magic just to have it taken away despite their best efforts.

Speaking of stress, did it ever occur to him that one of the problems teachers have is people randomly coming up to them, ICly with little RP or OOCly, begging for magic lessons? With the numbers of teachers on certain magics reduced, do you think this sort of activity decreases?

[1 1393]

I don't think I've actually seen a single MAT other than Slic3 approve of this rule.

Sounds like a very well working team to me!

[luv 3469]

I don't think I've actually seen a single MAT other than Slic3 approve of this rule.

Sounds like a very well working team to me!

Then what's the point of having a team? 

[Song Druid 1486]

I challenge Slic3 to personally acknowledge the claims and allegations that he seems to be the only MAT in support of this rule, or at the very least that he is in the minority where the rest of the team do not support it.  If you cannot operate as a team and work together properly why then should you expect us as a playerbase to acknowledge the rules you put forth?  We're all waiting to hear from you, Slic3.  I think everybody has made their points pretty clear and we want to know why you seem to be the only one on your team that is for your proposal.  

Edited December 6, 2015 by Song Druid
boldness

[Tsuyose 3285]

As the new MAT lead I will be officially taking this thread into consideration. Expect a post in regards to the rule in the coming day.