Schedule
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Sept. 17, 2010, 5:19 p.m. by $ªmHεiπ
we need some sort of process order/schedule, if not real dates (probably not needed)
on the order of :
brainstorm article
challenge : cacoon mythic
Finialize block
Challenge :
etc etc etc
it will follow a similar order as the last one.
Brainstorm article. Mythic rare challenge (cacoon) Mythic rare vote Main color rares (green) Enemy colors rares (Black, Blue, Black/Blue) Gold rares (GB, GU, GBU) We then rinse and repeat for each shard.
During this time we are giving away one mythic from each shard in challenges. (currently the idea for this is that we have a Make a irindu themed deck, then they make an irindu mythic)
once all the rares are done, we then figure out the uncommons.
once the uncommons are done, we put forth the design team mythic rares we design for vote.
and then we fill out the commons.
September 20, 2010 1:47 p.m.
mistergreen527 says... #5
The only alteration I would make to what Xander574 said is that if we do give away the creation of Mythics for those submitting winning preconstructions, this would happen last, as all of the commons and uncommons should be created, in order for users to include them in their submissions (run-on sentence, I know. I'm tired).
Also, somewhere in the mix we will have a flavor-text article and an art article for each shard. These will probably happen as we finish the commons/uncommons of each shard.
September 21, 2010 2:51 a.m.
I think that an actual calendar may be a good idea here too. Including deadline dates for uncommon and commons as well as dates for challenges.
September 21, 2010 11:19 a.m.
So long story short, kid wants foil snow mountain, guy wants narset. Here's the rest, stright off reddit:First the dad:
First of all, I would like to thank you all for providing me with the much needed advice. I decided to do the following but first I would like to clear some confusions/post some new information after talking with my son.The Narset was the planeswalker version, Narset Transcendent.My son knows how to play the game. He is fluent enough to be able to play the game without having to ask questions about every move.I did not forcefully drag my son into playing this wonderful game. He was very interested in the art of the cards and from there, I started to teach him little by little.According to my son, it was the other guy (I will be using the name "Beardman") who initiated the trade.The only cards that played a role in the trade were the Foil Snow Mountain and Narset.My son did agree to the trade that the Beardman proposed, but he did NOT know that different cards have different values. (He believed that all rares were of the same value and I didn't explain the concept of Mythic Rares to him).Yes, I admit that it was my fault for not keeping close watch of my son for the whole entire duration of the FNM. But that does not change the fact that I am still upset at Beardman.After talking with my son, I asked him if he still wanted to keep the snow-covered mountain. He told me that he wished to undo the trade.So at tonight's FNM, I brought my son to our LGS. Sure enough, Beardman was there and I decided to have a quiet conversation between him, my son, and myself. According to him...My son was the one who initiated the trade.He had explained that the Narset was much more expensive than the Land, but my son insisted that he wanted the mountain.Since my son does not have a trade binder, the only thing that he could trade the mountain for was the Narset.The nice thing was that he still did agree to undo the trade so I did not bother arguing with his points. Everything seemed to be going very well. However... When he received his snow-covered mountain back, he told me he couldn't undo the trade because the card had been way too damaged during the time it was in my son's hands. The card was in slightly played condition (What you would expect out of a old card like this) and I have no way to tell in what condition my son received it. I told him about how he is being extremely immoral. He simply replied "Sorry, MY Narset is still in great condition and HIS land is now in terrible condition" (exactly those words)I get pretty frustrated so I go to our store owner and explain the situation. My store owner talks to Beardman and said something pretty sweet. He told Beardman that he could either undo the trade and be welcomed to the store like always, or could refuse the trade and be welcomed to the store like a douchebag who cheated a kid.It was then that Beardman finally decided to undo the trade. My son was really happy and he ended up trading the Narset to the Store owner for one of each foil snow-covered land and 3 booster packs.Once again, I'd like to thank all of you for your help and am happy to answer any additional questions.
Now Beardman:
I didn't bother posting this immediately after because I knew I would just get flamed and trash-talked. Some time has passed so hopefully people can read the other side to the story.When I saw this post on reddit reddit! , I was baffled at how much of a filthy liar this guy is. He acts like such a nice guy online when in fact, he's just an attention-seeking asshole who isn't qualified to be a dad.two and a half weeks ago at our FNM, this guy came with his kid to FNM. He introduced his son to the game owner, took him to meet some of the other players, bought him a few packs (the kid didn't draft. the dad just bought him some DTK packs) and just LEFT HIM to start a game with others. The kid was left alone all by himself and he ended up sitting across from me at one of the tables doing nothing.Since I figured he should at least have something to do, I offered him to look through my binder. The kid was really enjoying it and then he came across the foil snow-covered mountain. He seemed to be particularly interested in it and asked me if he could have it. I explained that I couldn't give it to him, but I could trade for it. Once i explained it, he showed me some of his cards and here was the Narset. I was looking for Narsets and told him I would like to trade for his Narset. I ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS A HUGE PRICE DIFFERENCE AND OFFERED MORE OF THE CARDS IN MY BINDER However, the kid said he only wanted the mountain.I'm not obligated to deny a trade if theres a mutual agreement. I don't know who would deny this but apparently everyone in this sub-reddit does. Anyways, after we traded, I told him to make sure this is okay with his dad so off he went to his dad to show off his new card. The dad didn't even pay attention to his son. He simply looked, (i guess not closely enough since he doesn't remember it according to his first post), and went back to playing the game.So the night sort of ends like that and the following week, the dad, leaving his son at one of the tables with the store owner, tells me that we need to talk. He explains the situation and asks that I undo the trade. Of course, I agree and he gives me the card that used to be mine. What I received was a crumpled card with bend lines all over. Who would simply undo the trade? I showed him the Narset that his son traded to me, which was still in NM condition since I double sleeve my cards and said it wouldn't be fair for me. Now the dad storms off to the storm owner and starts yelling so that all the other people at the store could hear. He literally started throwing a tantrum. His son was scared, everyone was disturbed, and it humiliated me. Then the shop owner comes to me and tells me to undo the trade. I respect the shop owner so I agree even though things CLEARLY ARN'T FAIR. You think it would end with the son trading with the store owner and being all happy but it doesn't end there. For the rest of the night, the dad went on babbling about how I was such a scammer and how he couldn't believe someone like me exists. He tells his son to never talk nor come near me. At a certain point, I get fed up and leave.I've been a regular at the store for 3 years now and know that I am never going there ever again. You guys had one side of the story, here was mine.I'm not going to bother replying because I know most of you will flame me anyway. Just wanted to share a story about a dad that's more immature than his 7 year old son.
So who was at fault (sorry if this is the wrong section) ? I think Dad overreacted, but beardman should still have demanded trade equalization or ask the dad himself. How bout you?
April 8, 2015 5:47 p.m.
omnipotato says... #8
Both are at fault. Dad isn't paying attention to what the kid is doing and is letting him make terrible trades with cards it seems like he cares about (if he didn't care that much about the Narset, he would have just told his kid that it's a lesson learned and that he should be more intelligent about trading).
Beardman shouldn't have let the trade go through at all ("I'm not obligated to deny a trade if theres a mutual agreement" only applies to adults who know the values of cards). He should also have immediately traded back no matter what condition the Mountain was in, since the trade was bullshit to begin with and he took advantage of a kid.
April 8, 2015 5:59 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
@omnipotato: I disagree with your second paragraph. There's no age limit on this game. If you're old enough to know that cards can be traded for other cards, and if you're old enough to know that cards cost money to get, then you're old enough to know that cards can have different values. If that's explained in a clear way, and if it's obvious that the other party understands the concept, then you're not obligated to prevent someone from making a trade they want to make.
Now, beardman was aware enough of the situation that he probably should have gone to ask the dad before agreeing to the trade. That much is on him. But in general, you shouldn't say that anyone who trades up on a kid is automatically scamming that kid.
April 8, 2015 6:13 p.m.
Beardman is totally at fault for the trade.
Dad is totally at fault for being a shitty parent.
April 8, 2015 6:14 p.m.
pleasiodmakerblooloo says... #11
I 100% believe that both are at fault, as said before, the father should have honestly looked into the trade earlier and made sure his kid wasn't getting the bad side of a trade. I must admit, also, that bearded man should not have done the trade either. I agree with omnipotato. I believe that bearded mans logic of I'm not obligated to deny a trade if there's a mutual agreement is flawed. I think that, while there is no age limit on the game, there is one on understanding simple business. He could have thoroughly explained the cards' worth to the kid millions of times, but he was a child, he doesn't have the rational thought that adults do and probably never understood the situation completely. You cannot honestly compare a child and an adult in trading, all the kid could see was that foil snowy mountain. My opinion is that beaded man sort of "checked all the points" so that technically he wasn't doing anything morally wrong, be he still shouldn't have done this trade.
April 8, 2015 6:34 p.m.
I mean clearly a kid under 10 isn't going to fully understand the full concept of any true value, dollar or card wise. You also have to wonder how much of each post is entirely accurate. I've seen parents with their children at my lgs, and it's difficult to allow them to play while they play as well. I don't necessarily think the kid making an I'll advised trade while the dads not right by his side makes him a shitty parent. I don't think there's nearly enough to this story for any of us to determine whether or not any one here is a shitty person/parent. but I do know, and I think many will agree, that decent people aren't going to take advantage of a child for personal gain, especially over something so petty. I also know this type of thing wouldn't be likely to happen here at my lgs, just because there are many kids that the store/community looks out for them all.
April 8, 2015 6:45 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
I'm just going to point out that making the broad assumption that all kids are incapable of understanding trading is simply dishonest. Yes, there's a disparity in cognitive development and in real world experience, but the assumption still discards personal potential. Maybe I just had a fortunate upbringing and my own experience has given me a unique view on the matter, but there's something to be said for trusting that a child is capable of more understanding than you give him or her credit for, and there's also something to be said for consent regarding one's own property.
@mpeach1: The others are free to correct me, but I think the general lack of attention and immaturity described by beardman make the dad a shitty parent, not the failure to manage every second of his kid's experience (success on that front would also constitute being a shitty parent, in my opinion).
April 8, 2015 6:58 p.m.
Epochalyptik - well its enough to say that most kids don't understand trading. We can never really use the word 'all' for anything. Really though in this case it doesn't seem like the kid knows what they're doing to a large extent. They therefore cant give informed consent. Agreeing to something in most cases isn't enough, you have to make sure the other person really understands what they're agreeing to. I know this is something that businesses like to brush over often but it's really important to recognise and dishonest to exploit.
April 8, 2015 7:07 p.m.
My point though epoch, is how do we know all of that posted is the complete truth? Both sides of the story could be skewed in either direction. If the beardman was a little butthurt about losing his Narset, why wouldn't he try and make it look like the dad was just being a shitty parent? But honestly, maybe he is, I don't know. I just don't think we have enough concrete fact to make the determination. It does seem like generally, most of us wouldn't have made that trade under these circumstances though. As DBCooper said though, the shop owner did take care of it, so at least we have that. Now we just wait for his side of the story lol
April 8, 2015 7:07 p.m.
We don't know this child though so it's a bit counter productive to argue whether or not he was compos mentis.
April 8, 2015 7:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
@mpeach1: If you'll notice, I never said beardman's actions were fully justified. Neither did I say that the kid obviously fully understood anything. What I said is that if you understand card values, you are responsible for your own actions.
April 8, 2015 7:10 p.m.
It does say in the OP that the kid makes some basic economic mistakes (all rares are the same value). The evidence presented suggests that this isn't someone who really knows what they're doing.
April 8, 2015 7:13 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
That's a matter of one story versus another with no real metric for gauging accuracy. It can't be assumed that one specific account is more honest than the other.
I also find it at least somewhat likely that the father would have written that because he felt, like many of you seem to, that his son could not possibly have the requisite economic sensibilities to understand the trade. It's quite a good way to win an audience, you know.
April 8, 2015 7:30 p.m.
I hate the shop owner on either side. He lost a customer and deserved it. The dad was an ass, as his kid STILL LIKED THE CARD HE GOT. Beardy could have made an effort to equalize the trade or ask the dad himself. Noone wins and everyone is at fault here IMO
April 8, 2015 7:42 p.m.
I think that ASSUMING they are both telling their own POV how they truly remember it that the Dad has MORE fault than Beardman but Beardman should have just not done the trade.
There is a shop in my town called Otherworld games that encourages youngies like this 7 year old to play and he invites the vets to play with them to teach. it happens once a week. NEVER....NEVER have I met one who I would feel comfortable trading with if there was such a clear monetary difference. ill trade with someone just entering teens but if you are still in Elementary school I wouldnt trade with you just on principal
My opinion
Dad should realize assuming the kid DID show him the trade that instead of ignoring his son he shouldve looked at what his Son was showing him.
Beardman should have seen trouble coming a mile away.
April 8, 2015 7:46 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #24
There's really not any winning that scenario because he would likely lose a customer either way. And you're comparing a regular's account to a father's account, so it's not really an easy choice, especially if someone's making a scene. You either have to defend the kid or stand up for your regular.
April 8, 2015 7:47 p.m.
I try not to trade if I can see it turning sour like this. All I can say is that if I were beardman, I would've left it alone.
All morals aside, I'd rather not deal with an angry dad, an upset kid, and a grumbling shopkeep.
April 8, 2015 7:56 p.m.
omnipotato says... #26
NEVER have I met one who I would feel comfortable trading with if there was such a clear monetary difference. ill trade with someone just entering teens but if you are still in Elementary school I wouldnt trade with you just on principal
This. If you trade with an elementary-schooler, you are automatically public enemy number one in his/her parents' eyes, since it's so easy to take advantage of a child that young. Even if the trade was fair I wouldn't do it, since there's a chance that kid's not gonna like the card I gave him, and the parents will pull the same shit as in this story.
April 8, 2015 8:01 p.m.
omnipotato says... #27
the father would have written that because he felt, like many of you seem to, that his son could not possibly have the requisite economic sensibilities to understand the trade.
That's not the point. The point is when you take advantage of a kid (let's say the kid knows exactly what he's doing), there's going to be a huge risk of upsetting the dad, and the shop owner will have to take the kid's side or else he'll look like a complete asshole. Kids get a lot more leniency in such matters than adults even if they're completely aware of what they're doing. The question of if that's fair or not is another issue.
April 8, 2015 8:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
@omnipotato: I'll point out that your post once again automatically assumes the side of the parent. We cannot know for sure whether the kid was ripped off or not, and, further, my rebuttals have to do with the principle, not the he-said-she-said.
April 8, 2015 8:32 p.m.
ill trade with someone just entering teens but if you are still in Elementary school I wouldnt trade with you just on principal
April 8, 2015 8:41 p.m.
omnipotato says... #30
Epochalyptik My whole point is that it doesn't matter whether the kid was ripped off or not. You don't trade with a 7 year old because 90% of 7 year olds have no idea what they're doing, and you run the risk of incurring the wrath of their parents if they make a stupid decision, as 7 year olds consistently do. That's a principle regardless of this thread or anything in either story.
April 8, 2015 9:34 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #31
Except the actual wrongdoing your argument is predicated on the kid being ripped off. Sure, there's a risk of the parents being angry for whatever reason (this is the first time you've mentioned this concept, let alone made it the focal point of your argument), but that chance is not absolute grounds for avoiding kids at FNM, and it's to a large degree quite situational.
April 8, 2015 9:54 p.m.
omnipotato says... #32
I think you have a huge problem with reading comprehension because I've talked about how trading with kids leads to their parents getting mad in 3 of my 4 posts in this thread.
You can make business transactions with small children if you want, but it's just risky because they change their mind all the time and everyone will take their side even when they're clearly in the wrong. That's all I'm saying.
April 8, 2015 10:11 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #33
You know, there are ways to point out an inaccuracy besides insulting me. But in every post, your argument is predicated on the parents' reaction to the kid's dissatisfaction, not on anything else.
April 8, 2015 10:51 p.m.
dragonpaladin says... #34
The dad could have just bought the Beardman a new foil snow-covered mountain and not create such a scene out of it. The store owner had some in his store.
$ªmHεiπ says... #2
and if there is one already I appologize (and where is it) :)
September 17, 2010 5:20 p.m.