This thread needs more Elgins.

[Peter_Rotten]

(or is it Elgins - I can never remember)

Ben B. encourages the Legacy players to be polite while promoting the format (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=301214).

Read the article. Respond. What do you think? Does the Legacy community have a reputation for being rude and arrogant? Are we mistakenly judged by others because of our few loud-mouths?

[scrumdogg]

(or is it Elgins - I can never remember)

Ben B. is encourages the Legacy players to be polite while promoting the format (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=301214).

Read the article. Respond. What do you think? Does the Legacy community have a reputation for being rude and arrogant? Are we mistakenly judged by others because of our few loud-mouths?


Elgins, Eglins, w/e....and be accurate, we have many loudmouths in the format - some of whom even play the format. Those aren't quite so bad (usually) as the n00bcomers & "pro-spective" loudmouths like (examples rhyming with McNown, Smellendian, & Tee-Mosa deleted for sake of politeness...) who should (die from being sodomized by diseased livestock deleted cuz Ben 'Stick Up His Ass' Bleiweiss suddenly got the hots to be Mz. Magic Manners...).

[Caboose]

Magic is full of rude, arrogant, assholes. Columbus is such a shitty city for casual players, because everybody at the major card shops are straight up pricks. Once, I made a play mistake, and heard the following responses:

1) You're a fucking ******
2) Learn how to play, ***
3) Guess you should sell your cards, you piece of shit

I then realized that Magic the Gathering, the nerdiest hobby ever, has players who pretend to be cool by insulting other people's skills at MAGIC THE GATHERING. Look, most of us are too embarassed to admit we even play this game, and yet people are elitest assholes to the lesser players. This is a shame greater than any humankind has ever seen.

EDIT: From the article - "Make the Grand Prix an experience where non-Legacy regulars feel invited to become a part of the Legacy community, and not an us-versus-them game of "we must beat everyone else to prove how good we are at our own format.""

Actually, even though I trashed elitest Magic players above, it really is Legacy-versus-non Legacy at the GP. If Gearhart and Barnello don't Top 8, the format loses all credibility.

[Watcher487]

(or is it Elgins - I can never remember)

Ben B. is encourages the Legacy players to be polite while promoting the format (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=301214).

Read the article. Respond. What do you think? Does the Legacy community have a reputation for being rude and arrogant? Are we mistakenly judged by others because of our few loud-mouths?

I personally think we do have that sort of reputation, but it's sometimes no better when you compare it to Vintage at times. (I've personally done a couple of things that people would consider 'arrogant', while defending my point in a thread on SCG and got 'canned' from the forums for saying what I said.) We are judged harshly compared to other formats not just because of 'our' loud-mouths, but because of other forums loud-mouths too.

[frogboy]

Elgins, Eglins, w/e....and be accurate, we have many loudmouths in the format - some of whom even play the format. Those aren't quite so bad (usually) as the n00bcomers & "pro-spective" loudmouths like (examples rhyming with McNown, Smellendian, & Tee-Mosa deleted for sake of politeness...) who should (die from being sodomized by diseased livestock deleted cuz Ben 'Stick Up His Ass' Bleiweiss suddenly got the hots to be Mz. Magic Manners...).

yes, this is definitely helping.

[Goblin Snowman]

Read the article. Respond. What do you think? Does the Legacy community have a reputation for being rude and arrogant? Are we mistakenly judged by others because of our few loud-mouths?

I've never met anyone who honestly thought Legacy had more abusive players or jerks. I can see where people could get the idea, but go onto any MTG (competitive) forum and you'll see the exact same thing. Doesn't bother me at all.

[Nightmare]

If Gearhart and Barnello don't Top 8, the format loses all credibility.No pressure or anything....

Boil it down: Who cares? The possible outcomes are -

1) We act like assholes and everyone hates us, but forgets about us the very next day because we're Legacy players and there aren't any Legacy events coming up.

2) We act like gentlemen and everyone likes us, but forgets about us the very next day because we're Legacy players and there aren't any Legacy events coming up.

Seems like I should just be myself, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Peter_Rotten]

Seems like I should just be myself, and let the chips fall where they may.

Damn, we're screwed.

JK, JK!

[Zach Tartell]

Don't make Barnello get all Ralston on yo' ass!

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Hard G. Hard like the rockhard fist of justice.

No worries. I'm glad this MaskedMan, whomever that mysterious, handsome devil may be, seems to be on the case.

[Ewokslayer]

Ben B. can suck my massive cock. What does he know about Legacy, anyways?

Well the store he works for has run some of the largest Legacy tournaments.

[Xero]

Hopefully you know I was kidding. Becuase, Ben said like, Legacy players shouldn't be rude and arrogant, and then I was rude and arrogant. Thus ironically proving his point.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I get irony.

[kirdape3]

I absolutely agree with everything that Bleiweiss wrote. Legacy and Vintage are the most insular communities in Magic, bar none.

Back before Vintage actually was a widely played format (we're talking pre-2003 era and closer to 2000), there was not a lot of support whatsoever for the format from mainstream outlets. Bdominia.com's community was literally the only real spark that the format had at the time online. That community ended up with a great deal of people being extraordinarily insular and having a pretty nasty xenophobic streak towards every other format in Magic. Eventually Vintage grew, but it's only recently that the insular nature of the older Vintage players has started to fade.

Legacy's player base has many of those same qualities, but a little less justification for them. There are a lot more Legacy tournaments at a high level than there were Vintage tournaments before the GenCon and SCG series came into being.

[Rastadon]

I then realized that Magic the Gathering, the nerdiest hobby ever, has players who pretend to be cool by insulting other people's skills at MAGIC THE GATHERING. Look, most of us are too embarassed to admit we even play this game, and yet people are elitest assholes to the lesser players. This is a shame greater than any humankind has ever seen.


QFT, but for reasons besides the point.

I don't think you can make a generalization for legacy players as a whole. I do think you can make generalizations about sites. The stereotype that Sourcers are dicks can be an accurate one, and that MTGS people are casual players is also accurate. But we can be just straight up rude sometimes.

Here's a modest example that just took place today.
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5767

Now, this isn't a criticism of Aardvark. This is a criticism of the source. I doubt that anyone would have been polite to that guy and say "Hey, Welcome to The Source. That deck isn't new. It's the Rock, with a white splash. The link is over here." I have a feeling that if they did that over at MTGS they'd be a lot more polite.

Of course, no one's gonna hold a gun to your head and tell you to be polite. If that's what you want to do, that's what you want to do.

[Citrus-God]

Here's a modest example that just took place today.
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5767

Now, this isn't a criticism of Aardvark. This is a criticism of the source. I doubt that anyone would have been polite to that guy and say "Hey, Welcome to The Source. That deck isn't new. It's the Rock, with a white splash. The link is over here." I have a feeling that if they did that over at MTGS they'd be a lot more polite.

If you looked at the tone DEADMAN01 intended, it seems he was pissed because he lost to "jank." Other than that, he use a negative tone.... the reaction he should expect is a negative response.

If he said something like, "I lost to this deck while playing for the Top 8, and would be interested to share the list," then yes, he would get a positive response. I'm sure Aakvark would probably say "well, this is Truffle Shuffle. Truffle Shuffle is a board control deck that utilizes shuffle effects and Sensei's Divining Top for constant card quality and fuel, while throwing a plathora of disruption and board control to slowly steer the game into the Truffle Shuffle player's favor."

Let's say I'm walking down the stairs and someone behind me says, "can you move faster?" Based on what that person just said to me, I react based on whether that person is using a positive or negative tone. If it was a positive tone (which would've included 'please'), I would said, "sure, sorry about that," and just walk faster. If it's a negative tone, my response would've been, "who died and made you king of the world?"

[Peter_Rotten]

I'm actually enjoying that SCG thread so much that I'm reading it instead of playing WoW. The only thing that it lacks is someone linking to Wikipedia.

But in all honesty, I feel like it's one of those few threads that I may learn just a little something.

[hi-val]

@ Kirdape: the most insular format I ever encountered was 5-color. Those people acted like the shit because they played a format with Contracts in it. I enjoyed 5C for a long time, but the community (and restricting Dizzy Spell) ultimately drove me away from it and into Skittles as my casual format. Their forums are(were) basically "if you do not play in Madison, you do not play actual 5C and I screwed yer dog last night too."

So for what it's worth, pissants in a community drive away people who are interested in formats. Apply how you will.

[Peter_Rotten]

More importantly, HOLY SHIT! The Lovely Mare passed away last year? HOLY SHIT! Again! First Kurt and then the Lovely Mare? Seriously, I'm saddened by that.

Here. (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13483.html)

I know that I'm on a tangent and a year old one, but HOLY SHIT, I'm shocked.

[scrumdogg]

Kurt who? And what rock have you been living under to not know the trauma Jamie Wakefield endured this past year??? Cancer sucks, support your local fundraisers against it (regardless of what format you play) and give blood, you slackers!

[Zach Tartell]

Kurt who? And what rock have you been living under to not know the trauma Jamie Wakefield endured this past year??? Cancer sucks, support your local fundraisers against it (regardless of what format you play) and give blood, you slackers!

I'll make my second gallon on my next donation. Man, more people need to make controvertial posts so my not-drinking friday nights don't suck. I'm goign to go read the third harry potter book in spanish.

[Sims]

Kurt who? And what rock have you been living under to not know the trauma Jamie Wakefield endured this past year??? Cancer sucks, support your local fundraisers against it (regardless of what format you play) and give blood, you slackers!

I have. I had no idea about what was going on with Jamie Wakefield.... And knowing Matt is an english teacher I'm going to assume he meant Kurt Vonnegut.

[TheAardvark]

I tend to see Jack's side...er, I mean MaskedMan's side of the discussion on the SCG thread, but that is obviously because I am a member of the nefarious Legacy Community. Every social group has cliques, and each clique has members who are either outspoken or just plain fucking douchebags. That is social structure on a very basic level, and it will never change.

Oh, and as far as the thread that Rastadon referenced on the previous page, I felt that the poster's word usage (not tone) required a specific type of response, and I chose that. I was half-wrong, because it was not exactly Truffle Shuffle (I missed the Baloths in the posted list), but I stand by the post.

I mean, you could even use Tacosnape's post in which he discussed Disco Inferno as an example of someone being "negative", but you know what? The post was very entertaining, and actually made a point. If you validate your point, I don't think the perceived tone should be relevant in any way. This is actually something I know a good deal about, as the company I worked for until March had all kinds of issues with employee to employee emails, and I was singled out twice when a tone that was in no way implied was perceived by someone. Trying to read tone into print, unless it hits you over the head, is generally a waste of time.

[Di]

http://geo.channel4.com/film/media/film/4x/V/v_for_vendetta_xl_04.jpg


OMG IT'S LIEK I'M LIVING THE HYPE

But seriously, is anyone else reading that SCG thread? It blows my mind how a discussion can go off like that. I thought it was supposed to be a discussion on community building with the Legacy community, but rather it has somehow turned off into the war featuring V and Adam "Ben" Sutler. SpatulaoftheAges is also featured as Natalie Portman.

Enjoy the show!

[Getsickanddie]

Magic is full of rude, arrogant, assholes. Columbus is such a shitty city for casual players, because everybody at the major card shops are straight up pricks. Once, I made a play mistake, and heard the following responses:

1) You're a fucking ******
2) Learn how to play, ***
3) Guess you should sell your cards, you piece of shit

I then realized that Magic the Gathering, the nerdiest hobby ever, has players who pretend to be cool by insulting other people's skills at MAGIC THE GATHERING. Look, most of us are too embarassed to admit we even play this game, and yet people are elitest assholes to the lesser players. This is a shame greater than any humankind has ever seen.


Instead of throwing punches, we make fun of his height for a little while (He was like 5'2" 120 lbs). I made such hilarious comments as "I didn't know they cheated in the Shire" and "If you need help destroying the ring, let me know." I made at least a hundred Hobbit jokes in rapid succession.

[T is for TOOL]

MaskedMan was winning the debate until he failed to successfully apply an ethos angle by acknowledging his own superiority in the format. His tone quickly changed to condescension causing him to lose public support and, hence, the debate. :frown:

[Machinus]

There are a few people who have relevant ideas on how to promote a format. SCG's dealer is not one of them.

[T is for TOOL]

Promotion of the format became an irrelevant topic when the debate between Ben B. and MaskedMan began to heat up. As the movie Thank You For Smoking demonstrates, the way to win a public debate is to prove that the other party is wrong. If they are wrong, then you are right. You can actually feel the momentum in the thread change from an emphasis on Ben's bigoted message to the obnoxious and condescending comments made by MaskedMan. The fall begins on the post that is 7th from the bottom of the 2nd page, where MaskedMan begins to flat-out condescend. The focus of debate shifts at that point from Ben's remarks to MaskedMan's egotistical tone. There wasn't much interest in the thread for me after that point.

[Mulletus]

Kurt who? And what rock have you been living under to not know the trauma Jamie Wakefield endured this past year??? Cancer sucks, support your local fundraisers against it (regardless of what format you play) and give blood, you slackers!

lol they turned down my blood

[kirdape3]

MaskedMan actually reinforced every conceivable negative stereotype possible in that thread. Not only is the perception that Legacy players are insular and defensive carried on, but that they're awfully touchy about even being so.

Steve actually jumped in at the end of the current thread and laid out MaskedMan. If people like Talen Lee and Steve Menendian are smashing into you for reinforcing a stereotype, and are carrying the day in doing so, you're doing something absolutely hideously wrong.

Chris: The most relevant people in growing an Eternal format (as in, those who have done it successfully from a lesser state than this) are as follows:

Steve O'Connell
Stephen Menendian
Oscar Tan
Ray Robillard
Pete Hoefling (Waterbury showed that there was a market for large Vintage tournaments. SCG proved that it was sustainable, although not having one until June this year is slightly annoying)

There are a couple more, especially in the New England area who helped fuel the staggering growth in the 2002-2004 time frame, but those five are the ultimate keys. Oscar kept some sort of interest alive in My Keeper chapter MCMLXVIII. Steve O'Connell founded the replacement to Bdominia.com - TheManaDrain.com. That kept the Vintage community intact by proving a continued forum for all to gather in. Steve is still the most passionate advocate of Vintage in existence. Ray and Pete provide the penultimate proxy Vintage tournament series - without which none of the rest of the growth of Vintage would be possible.

Anybody who wants to let Legacy flourish would be incredibly wise to follow those examples. Legacy's nowhere near as much of a niche as Vintage was during the Dark Ages - there are large tournaments all the way up to the Grand Prix level, there are multiple higher-level tournaments run by non-Wizards venues that are successful, and there is a community already in place. You don't have to worry about Legacy dying; just work on selling it to people who would otherwise be playing Limited or Constructed formats.

[dre4m]

I absolutely agree with everything that Bleiweiss wrote. Legacy and Vintage are the most insular communities in Magic, bar none.


I sincerely hope that I am considered a part of this insular Legacy community.

[Caboose]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caboose http://mtgthesource.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=131038#post131038)
Magic is full of rude, arrogant, assholes. Columbus is such a shitty city for casual players, because everybody at the major card shops are straight up pricks. Once, I made a play mistake, and heard the following responses:

1) You're a fucking ******
2) Learn how to play, ***
3) Guess you should sell your cards, you piece of shit

I then realized that Magic the Gathering, the nerdiest hobby ever, has players who pretend to be cool by insulting other people's skills at MAGIC THE GATHERING. Look, most of us are too embarassed to admit we even play this game, and yet people are elitest assholes to the lesser players. This is a shame greater than any humankind has ever seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caboose
Instead of throwing punches, we make fun of his height for a little while (He was like 5'2" 120 lbs). I made such hilarious comments as "I didn't know they cheated in the Shire" and "If you need help destroying the ring, let me know." I made at least a hundred Hobbit jokes in rapid succession.






@Getsickanddie - I fail to see your point. I'm an asshole to people who are assholes to me and my friends. I'm not an asshole because someone drafted the wrong card :frown:

[Machinus]

Chris: The most relevant people in growing an Eternal format (as in, those who have done it successfully from a lesser state than this) are as follows:

Steve O'Connell
Stephen Menendian
Oscar Tan
Ray Robillard
Pete Hoefling (Waterbury showed that there was a market for large Vintage tournaments. SCG proved that it was sustainable, although not having one until June this year is slightly annoying)

There are a couple more, especially in the New England area who helped fuel the staggering growth in the 2002-2004 time frame, but those five are the ultimate keys. Oscar kept some sort of interest alive in My Keeper chapter MCMLXVIII. Steve O'Connell founded the replacement to Bdominia.com - TheManaDrain.com. That kept the Vintage community intact by proving a continued forum for all to gather in. Steve is still the most passionate advocate of Vintage in existence. Ray and Pete provide the penultimate proxy Vintage tournament series - without which none of the rest of the growth of Vintage would be possible.

Anybody who wants to let Legacy flourish would be incredibly wise to follow those examples. Legacy's nowhere near as much of a niche as Vintage was during the Dark Ages - there are large tournaments all the way up to the Grand Prix level, there are multiple higher-level tournaments run by non-Wizards venues that are successful, and there is a community already in place. You don't have to worry about Legacy dying; just work on selling it to people who would otherwise be playing Limited or Constructed formats.

I have a lot of respect for those people from my time playing Vintage. There are a lot of important differences between Legacy and Vintage, but I can appreciate the similarities.

What I do not appreciate is deception and hypocrisy. Legacy is ripe for these things because there are only a few veteran players and a fragmented community. If players want to take tournament advice from amateurs with bad or even no tournament performance then that's their right. It doesn't lend weight to those ideas, obviously.

I will leave the conflict of interest an exercise for the reader.

Legacy is caught between an apathetic DCI and a disorganized community. Both of these need to be different for the format to be interesting or even remotely sellable.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

http://geo.channel4.com/film/media/film/4x/V/v_for_vendetta_xl_04.jpg


How do you ban an idea, Mr. Bleiweiss? On a side note,

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/152/awinnerisyoufs1iu4.jpg

[DeathwingZERO]

While the end of the thread basically got down to a near catfight, I do have to say that anybody not active in any given community need not tell others they need to take care of the loudmouths. A community of "volunteer" players is not something that is geared to self-governing.

It is not the player base responsible for the outspoken advocates and downright assholes, it's the promoters and the tournament organizers. If someone is being a total douchebag, that's unsportsmanlike. In any competitive event, it should be punished by those responsible for making the competition both successful, and a sign that those that give a damn enough to promote the format, also promote the entertainment end via respectful players.

It's pretty easy to be someone who works/volunteers at an event and sees these things from the sidelines tell others what to do, for example, but how often has he gone up to someone at a tournament and said "If you continue on with this attitude, your going to get kicked from the tournament"? Another player has no authority over someones attitude, they are a peer, not an enforcer. While a player could easily go to a judge and say "this player is being wholly unsportsmanlike and is completely disrespecting fellow players", that would (and should) be the extent of their influence on how someone acts.

If I am going to play in a tournament, and expect to have fun, it is not MY responsibility to make sure that everyone is on their best behavior. Both years of hosting AND playing in tournaments (especially outside of Legacy) have proved to me that no matter what the format, there's going to be arrogance, and elitism. In all honesty though, Legacy is the LAST of the constructed formats that has this problem in a serious manner.

[URABAHN]

MaskedMan was winning the debate until he failed to successfully apply an ethos angle by acknowledging his own superiority in the format. His tone quickly changed to condescension causing him to lose public support and, hence, the debate. :frown:

Yup, but I think it was unavoidable when his expertise on Hulk Flash was called into question. What shocked me the most is how rude Ben B. is, telling people to GO AWAY! What doesn't shock me is how Talen Lee, Smennen, and Anusien come to Ben's aid. I do wonder why more "company men" haven't rushed to Ben's aid.

[Rastadon]

I mean, you could even use Tacosnape's post in which he discussed Disco Inferno as an example of someone being "negative", but you know what? The post was very entertaining, and actually made a point. If you validate your point, I don't think the perceived tone should be relevant in any way.

It sounds like you choose content over tone, which isn't to say that you can't have both. But that's a choice, as long as you're consciously aware of what you're doing I'll stand by it.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Ben, I can understand you telling MaskedMan to go away if he were being rude or otherwise violating Forum Rules, but as far as I can see, he's making clear, level-headed arguments.


Actually, I've been private-messaged overnight by several members of the Legacy Community to let me know that MaskedMan is InfamousBearAssassin/WellKnownBrownieGolem, a person who has been twice-banned from StarCityGames.com for being one of the worst trolls/flamers we've seen on our site. Accordingly, I've re-banned this account of his for circumventing his previous bans.

Oh well. I like how he inadvertently acknowledges that he wasn't aware of any forum rules I violated before he responded to my clear, level-headed arguments by calling me a troll and telling me to go away. Go, go, post hoc justification, I guess?

Oh well. At least it gave him an easy way to ignore the argument. Any day spent without self-improvement is a day of accomplishment in my book.



I made suggestions and gave advice on how to act to grow your format. Nobody is forcing you to listen to my ideas. If you think being nice to people and making them feel welcome in your community is bad advice, so be it!

The irony is that he's criticizing other people for being overly defensive and rude in the article this thread is about.

So much for Starcity Games.

What should I name my fourth account? I'm open to suggestions.

[Hanni]

What should I name my fourth account? I'm open to suggestions.

Viva_La_Resistance

[Atwa]

What should I name my fourth account? I'm open to suggestions.

-V-
TheElgin
Backagain
fourthattempt

How the hell should I know? You are the creative one when it commes to making up original decknames. It shouldn't be too hard to make up a forumname (esspecially since I feel it won't stick around long enough so people will actually remember you by it).

BTW, you were doing a great job at telling Ben where he was wrong, I really didn't like his aditude.

EDIT: you can always look up the 'name IBA's deck/dick' thread.

[Anarky87]

The_Elgin_Strikes_Back

[Peter_Rotten]

What should I name my fourth account? I'm open to suggestions.

It must be deliciously ironic. Maybe something like

Ben_Was_Right
Illogical_jerk
Sir_Troll_a_Lot
I_Play_Trix


It is a shame that you were re-banned. I thought that you were handling yourself well, and I didn't consider any of the posts in that thread trolling and surely not flaming. I can't speak about your previous actions, but it is a shame that the thread could not come to a more natural conclusion.

[T is for TOOL]

Someone else can always pick up the torch. It's not hard to nail the guy on what he said, there just isn't any real reason to unless your ego needs a boost.

I vote for:
GRAH

[Di]

Here's a better idea : Don't post on the SCG forums. Articles are nice, but their forums are on par with fucking Brainburst.

Otherwise, -V- is the only appropriate name. As you said Jack, how does someone ban an idea?

Oh man I'm cracking up. I also love how Ben Bleiweiss refers to you as a troll/flamer. Now, you know damn well that I hate you, so you know something is up when I'm actually behind you here. Problem is, Sutler is a fucking idiot who hasn't the slightest damn clue on what he's talking about when it comes to the Legacy community. He raises some good points and I'll give him that, but he isn't a part of it. It's like having a white person saying he understands what it's like for a black person to go through racial prejuduce, which is completely bullshit as they've never been through it themselves.

On any note, I believe it is solely because SCG's forums are littered with more retarded people than a mental institution, and don't appreciate the logic behind a solid, coherant debate. Generally I hate seeing IBA going off on those damn tangents for whatever the hell the topic is, but he at least, albeit in a condescending manner, conveys his ideas to the public well, and certainly (for the most part) doesn't act as a troll. People at SCG apparently confuse troll with argument, somehow. It's pathetic, really.

[Peter_Rotten]

GRAH

THAT is golden! I bet it's already taken though. :frown:

[Anusien]

If you don't want to contribute to discussions on the Source, don't.

This actually goes to all of you. Your self-righteous, arrogant, assholishness over there (that I have to clean up) only makes Legacy look worse. It's amazing Ben and Pete agreed to hold the D4D in spite of people like you. Honestly, either go there to post constructively or just stay away.

Please don't turn this into a flame-fest. We wish to retain our reputation as friendly and welcoming, and statements like these only perpetuate a terribly mistaken stereotype of Legacy players.

-PR

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If you don't want to contribute to discussions on the Source, don't.

This actually goes to all of you. Your self-righteous, arrogant, assholishness over there (that I have to clean up) only makes Legacy look worse. It's amazing Ben and Pete agreed to hold the D4D in spite of people like you. Honestly, either go there to post constructively or just stay away.

God, you're cute. I knew I saved those AIM conversations for a reason.


Anusien: You're just criticizing the card choices that I've actually agonized, tested and theorized
Doomska: For doing so much theorizing and testing, you don't have much of an argument for them. I'd expect more relevant explanations.
Doomska: Anyway, I have to crash. Like an hour ago.
Anusien: That's because you're throwing ad h ominem attacks like you got banned from the DCI
Anusien: pre-grunt, I would have agreed with you about tide and thresh, but grunt makes those matchups winnable
Doomska: See, this is exactly the point. Quote a single ad hominem attack I made.
Anusien: well, it makes tide winnable and thresh good
Doomska: You're just incapable of accepting rational criticism as is.
Doomska: So it must be flaming.
Doomska: Also, that had nothing to do with my being banned from the DCI at all.
Anusien: (1:12:38 AM) Jack Elgin: Goddamit. This is the problem with Vintage players. It's also not "crap". Everything doesn't have to be life-or-death, good-or-evil hyperbole.
Doomska: Okay. How is that ad hominem?
Anusien: (1:07:26 AM) Jack Elgin: A lot of people give arguments about why speculation about their pet decks are wrong, talk about how great the deck is in testing, describe everything as an amazing matchup, and still somehow don't do amazingly with it.
(1:07:35 AM) Jack Elgin: So, to be honest, I don't credit others' testing much.
Doomska: Do you even know what "ad hominem" means?
Anusien: Yes. It means to the person
Doomska: Okay. And how do either of those fit that definition?
Doomska: Neither is an attack on you.
Doomska: Neither is using an insinuation about your character in place of an argument.
Anusien: Of course. You're simply making sweeping generalizations that you just imply to cover me taking all of my testing results into question and sweeping me up into a generalization about Vintage players.


So, something about not being overly defensive, taking everything as a personal attack, or being upset when someone attributes to you a behavior stereotyped to a certain group? What were you saying again, Kevin?

Well, to be fair, at least you've set firm precedent for being unable to understand the difference between flaming and simple disagreement, so I can hardly claim surprise.

I'm curious: Do you think Bleiweiss would describe you as a "clean" and "articulate" Legacy player?


It's amazing Ben and Pete agreed to hold the D4D in spite of people like you.


For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

[Peter_Rotten]

Honestly, either go there to post constructively or just stay away.

But I truly feel that IBA was posting constructively in that thread. If you are speaking only about that thread and have included me in the "assholishness," you shouldn't have. I was nothing but polite.

Ben and SCG has done some excellent things for the Legacy format. DLDs and weekly articles? WONDERFUL! Give us even more of 'em because I love 'em!

But Ben has also written and published an article lecturing Legacy players how to act with common courtesy at the GP. Can you not see how that can be taken as somewhat insulting? Don't take my arguments too far - it's not like I cried myself to sleep, but that article is slightly insulting.

Imagine I reminded you to brush your teeth. There would be many implications and veiled insults to that statement.

Hopefully this article doesn't cause a bit of a rift between the Legacy community and SCG. I don't think it should or would, but I would hate for Ben to think, "fuck them, that IBA sure makes me mad."

[Slay]

If you don't want to contribute to discussions on the Source, don't.

This actually goes to all of you. Your self-righteous, arrogant, assholishness over there (that I have to clean up) only makes Legacy look worse. It's amazing Ben and Pete agreed to hold the D4D in spite of people like you. Honestly, either go there to post constructively or just stay away.


When I read this the first time, I thought you were talking about the SCG community, and it made a lot more sense.
-Slay

[Ewokslayer]

Does anyone understand the point Ben is trying to make by posting a link to the DCI stating Jack's suspension?

I mean besides defining an ad hominem attack for everyone.

[Nihil Credo]

It only makes sense that after a single meaningless crap rare has severely defaced the format, a single meaningless non-specialist article ends up doing severe damage to the community.

Therefore, I propose that on the very same day Flash gets banned, IBA and Anusien publicly make out and proclaim everlasting love to each other. Thus will the balance of the universe be restored.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Does anyone understand the point Ben is trying to make by posting a link to the DCI stating Jack's suspension?

I mean besides being the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Surely I do. I shall explain it to-


Oh, damn, I just read the second part of your post. Way to ruin my punchline.

I don't know what it is exactly about me that inspires normally (or at least frequently) sane and rational people to behave as raving lunatics without any sense of their own arguments or how they're actually behaving, but I suspect it has something to do with the phases of the moon. Or possibly the hard "G" in Elgin. Everyone always tries to pronounce it as a J, and this is incorrect, so maybe they fly into a rage over that, or something.

I guess I know whose booth I won't be patronizing at Columbus, anyway.

[Slay]

I guess I know whose booth I won't be patronizing at Columbus, anyway.

Yeah, you've done enough patronizing of them already.

*rimshot*
-Slay

[Peter_Rotten]

I don't know what it is exactly about me that inspires normally (or at least frequently) sane and rational people to behave as raving lunatics without any sense of their own arguments or how they're actually behaving....

It's probably that when it comes to an debate/argument, you act like a rabid dog with a bone. You don't let it go (and I'm not saying you should).

Family of lawyers? Arguments are breakfast; Debate is lunch. Logic for dinner and Reason for dessert. No matter how right or wrong you are, you argue better than most. So it's frustrating when someone feels that he is right but is unable to articulately explain his view points in the same manner that you do.

Not kissing up, because there are times I'd rather see you DIAF then read eight pages of Elgin-Argument. I simply think that you are right in this instance.

[MattH]

Oh well. I like how he inadvertently acknowledges that he wasn't aware of any forum rules I violated before he responded to my clear, level-headed arguments by calling me a troll and telling me to go away. Go, go, post hoc justification, I guess?

Ban evasion is itself a bannable offense.

[kirdape3]

When someone says to me 'Here is the perception of you (or your group) by the larger community, here's what I think you should do to change it', doesn't it make sense to at least wonder why that perception exists?

The fundamental questions are, to me at least, these:

1) Is there a public relations issue between the Legacy community (which, like it or not, is almost as separate from the Premiere-level community as Vintage is) and the Premiere-level community?

2) If so, does the Legacy community care about that issue? Ensuring continued support from outside agencies may very well depend on the success of this Grand Prix; having such a negative public reaction is not necessarily conducive to Grand Prix success.

3) If the Legacy community does care about this issue, how does it go about changing the perception?

Ben's response to these questions are as follows: Yes, they should, and don't act like a jackass in public (including message forums). He wrote them in an article that a lot of people in Legacy really didn't like, gauging by the reaction. I'm absolutely convinced that what he said made perfect sense, and that's mostly how Vintage ended up exploding in popularity.

If someone with direct experience with such events in Vintage had written that article, would it have had more credibility? Trust me, that format has much the same problems that Legacy does with regards to the public perception. And people have certainly explained that what turns them off the most about Vintage isn't the format itself, but the people around it. Do you want Legacy to have the same problems? Because it has and will continue to have them in the future if the public relations between the niche of Legacy and the wider community of Premiere-level Magic do not improve.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

When someone says to me 'Here is the perception of you (or your group) by the larger community, here's what I think you should do to change it', doesn't it make sense to at least wonder why that perception exists?

Stop there. I know exactly why that perception exists.

Because people think Legacy is the American West in the mid 19th Century. And we are the Native Americans.

To them, this is open territory, and any deck is viable(but especially their pet deck), and when this perception conflicts with the reality of the format, people become angry and feel insulted, much like those angry, pimply teens in Hot Topic t-shirts that hang out by the cafeteria. It doesn't matter that the fault actually lies with the dejected for their unrealistic expectations. Numbers and ignorance are all that is required to create a bad public image.

[T is for TOOL]

Because people think Legacy is the American West in the mid 19th Century. And we are the Native Americans.

I'm going to have to agree with the people who suggest that we make lemonade out of lemons. Maybe we can open a Legacy casino or something. However, for those that disagree that this perception is prevalent, here is a random post from a Wizard's Hulk-Flash thread.


I have more testing to do with the deck but the writing is on the wall...My RW Control/Rifter build for the anticipated aggro heavy Goblin infested enviroment at the GP Columbus has to be shelved. I decided not to attend the GP due to Hulk Flash, can't really see much point in going as I'm not fan of luck based formats. A trip to GP Columbus with the current metagame would be nothing but a waste of time and money.

However, the good news is with the format in upheaval (no pun) all the fomat based knowledge typical hard core Legacy players had with the format is diminished greatly. The lack of experience the Pro's had with the Legacy format becomes much less important. Hulk Flash levels the playing field giving folks that know very little about Legacy a "free" format equalizer.

It would have been horrible to have a GP where may be a couple of the hard core Legacy "scrubs" made Top 8 or something based on knowing the format while a lot of talentec Pro's got wrecked by them.

Think about the folks like Dave Gerhart (Solidarity-High Tide/Reset) that have won Star City's Duel for the Dual's by beating Pro players in the Legacy format have had their edge taken away. By changing the errata, WotC leveled took away the advantages the amatures had and put everyone on a level playing field. This helps the Pro's assuming they are willing to play in a random format where luck not skill determines the winner. The guy at our local card shop that made the Pro Tour said he isn't wasting his time or money to attend GP Columbus because he's not a fan of luck based metagames. I can't really say I blame him.

It's sort of like a one side Wrath of God, clearing the board of the old metagame.

[kirdape3]

And you know how you counter that? You get out, you write about the format constructively, you demonstrate that everyone's pet deck will in fact get destroyed, and above all else you try to sell the format to people who don't have a clue. You know, what Bleiweiss advocated.

[Machinus]

If you don't want to contribute to discussions on the Source, don't.

This actually goes to all of you. Your self-righteous, arrogant, assholishness over there (that I have to clean up) only makes Legacy look worse. It's amazing Ben and Pete agreed to hold the D4D in spite of people like you. Honestly, either go there to post constructively or just stay away.

The SCG forums are a tragic self-parody of the stupid, immature, untalented downfalls of forum magic. I'm not sure its possible to make it look worse.

As for your attacks on other Legacy players: I think this might be the most succint manifestation yet of your incredible hypocrisy. Self-righteous? Arrogant? Assholish? If these things don't completely describe the way you act online then they have no meaning.


Is there a public relations issue between the Legacy community and the Premiere-level community?

I don't think this exists. Competitive magic players are concerned about metagames and technology, not finding new friends.


Ensuring continued support from outside agencies may very well depend on the success of this Grand Prix; having such a negative public reaction is not necessarily conducive to Grand Prix success.

There's a question here about who is responsible for promoting the format. If players do all the work advertising and selling it, Wizards reaps the rewards. In a format that is capable of supporting huge events, it should be a cooperative effort. If Columbus suffers, it will be because Flash is a stupid deck, not because people got upset that Flash is a stupid deck. The overall growth of the format that comes from friendly players is a slow process and isn't going to change very much in the short term.


Ben's response to these questions are as follows:

First of all, Ben is not an authority on technology or community responsibility. He is a dealer and not a deckbuilder or player. We can take that for what it means.

Second of all, I think this is where Legacy is different. Vintage had one path to popularity, and that was through a few individuals who spent many years slowly getting people interested. Legacy is not going to follow this model, and it can't. There is official support, pro-player interest, and way more coverage on mtg.com and scg.com than Vintage ever had at this age. People know about the format, and they have access to the wealth of information that is availabe. There is already a hardcore group of Legacy players here who love this format and have started regular Legacy tournaments, written articles, and converted a lot of new players (I have done all of these). The limiting factors in this format are two things: one, detailed and intelligent managament from the DCI, and two: a responsive and competitive community. These things support each other when they are strong, and weaken each other when they are not. There is only so much that a small group of volunteer community builders can do.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

And you know how you counter that? You get out, you write about the format constructively, you demonstrate that everyone's pet deck will in fact get destroyed, and above all else you try to sell the format to people who don't have a clue. You know, what Bleiweiss advocated.


A)People do write about the format constructively. They do it on these forums, mainly. Not you, maybe, but other people.

B)Ditto.

C)Ditto.

[Cabal_chan]

I just want to say I think IBA handled himself very well in the argument in the forum, and it is a shame that it came to a premature end. I read Ben Bleiweiss's article, and while I personally am not up in arms over it, as it is simply one person's perception, I can see, courtesy IBA's points, how it can be offensive.

It seems that we now must be overly polite, as well as vigilantes.

I do, however, dislike the label he has given people who view the impact of Hulk Flash in a negative light. He says "Many have adopted a “the sky is falling” attitude towards this combo deck, and let me say — this also does not help engender people to your format" , but then says "Yes, Hulk Flash will warp the metagame at Columbus." Not only does that make it seem that he is dismissing anyone who disagrees with him on the Hulk Flash issue as Henny Pennies and a non-supporter of the format if they warn other players about the deck, but then he makes a statement that contradicts with what he said earlier. He says, in a casual manner, that Hulk Flash can be hated out.

As for players being "xenophobic, exclusionary, and overly defensive," not only are those perceptions relative, but how are you going to change that? Changing how someone's personality and how they act isn't an easy thing to do, and confronting them about it may cause more harm then good. Especially a tournament setting. Tensions can be high, words misunderstood, etc...

"Encourage their ideas, don't talk down to them, and don't act like you are “better than them” because you are more familiar with the format than they are."

This is easier said then done. Encouraging someone's ideas is one thing. If you encourage them with their pet deck, and they get creamed, you misled them. If you tell them, no matter how gently, that their pet deck is not going to make it, you are now being condescending and acting like you are better than them just because you know the format. And even if you try to help someone make their deck more competitive, they may take that as you acting superior.

I am interested in what Mr. Bleiweiss's fail safe guide for interaction with new players is. I hope that he has it in the next article he does.

I just want to apologize if I took anyone's points or arguments and incorporated them into this.

[scrumdogg]

The fundamental questions are, to me at least, these:

1) Is there a public relations issue between the Legacy community (which, like it or not, is almost as separate from the Premiere-level community as Vintage is) and the Premiere-level community?

If you replaced Premiere-level community with general Magic community or non tournament player community, I would agree. However, the Premiere-level community (for the most part) doesn't give a rats ass about Legacy (or any other format as a format). They are 'in it to win it' looking for points - ratings & Pro, plane tickets, club levels & cash. Appealing to them about our unique little format is a massive waste of time (for the most part). The general community is the one which has been ambushed at Columbus by Hulk Flash as their homebrew pet decks (or netdecks before April 20th) are not only irrelevant, but they will not even have fun or a meaningful game of Magic as they get destroyed by the monster in the closet (no, not David Gearhart, the OTHER 'oops I have a response & win' monster in the closet....). GP Hulk Flash is liable to do sooooooo much more damage to our format by alienating & antagonizing the very player base we want to court. Those of us hooked on Legacy will endure, we will be here (or come back) when Flash finally oozes from the bldg, leaving destruction in it's wake. This will not be the case for those whose exposure to 'Legacy' is GP Hulk Flash...and they talk. People familiar with the dictum that word of mouth advertising is the strongest available - positive & negative? That a dis-satisfied customer will tell at least 9 people they know? This is the point many people have been making concerning GP Hulk Flash - that the entire experience could be devastating to the format at a basic level...which eventual banning of Flash won't help (classic case of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped). This is why people are advocating avoiding the GP - it would be less damaging to have diminished attendance than a larger crowd of ultimately horrified & disgusted players new(ish) to Legacy. It is also why people are being brutally honest toward deck choices. Not that little Johnny's Kavu deck was going to sweep the GP, but at least he would have had the sense of participating in a non-Flash scenario. IBA & I have issues going back many years, but he is 100% right in this case. It would be a shame if he was disregarded now because he has been an ass in the past & often communicates in a condescending way - as he is right.

[Ewokslayer]

IBA, Scrumdogg, and Machinus all agreeing on something.

Does anyone else feel a verse of Kumbia coming on?

[Whit3 Ghost]

Yeah, this has to be a sign of the coming apocalypse.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Family of lawyers?

...maybe....



When someone says to me 'Here is the perception of you (or your group) by the larger community, here's what I think you should do to change it', doesn't it make sense to at least wonder why that perception exists?

I know exactly why it exists. It exists because people are exposed to this behavior and then speak of it to others. But I went to great lengths to explain why such prejudices are self-perpetrating and impossible to "disprove", and that therefore beginning by treating them as valid is the same as conceding defeat from the get-go. (Then he told me to go away because I was ruining Legacy. Then, later on, he learned who I was and assigned that as the reason for his response through some post hoc, quantum flux in the time stream.)


And you know how you counter that? You get out, you write about the format constructively, you demonstrate that everyone's pet deck will in fact get destroyed, and above all else you try to sell the format to people who don't have a clue. You know, what Bleiweiss advocated.

I have no reason at all, based on prior experience, to expect anyone defending this article to actually listen to or address an argument. Thus, in the interest of saving my time from needless typing, I'm simply going to quote this mysterious MaskedMan fellow.




Now why would those who perceive the prejudice have any reason to not believe Legacy players are jerks? Because it is bad? They wouldn't care, they would go play some other format. As I said, if a person believes something, they need to see overwhelming evidence that it is not the case. If they do not, in their mind it is only confirmed.


This is called appeasement, and it is historically one of the few ways to absolutely guarantee failure for your cause.

Booker T. Washington advocated the exact same attitude to black Americans following the Reconstruction, and during the early 20th century. He posited that if Blacks worked hard, obeyed the law, paid their taxes and contributed needed skills to their community, they would come to be appreciated and respected. With the absolute best of intentions, he essentially suggested that it was reasonable of whites to assume blacks were lazy and incompetent, but that it was the duty of blacks to prove otherwise, and that in this way they could gain equality, respect and safety.

To summarize the history lesson, he was wrong. Dreadfully, terribly wrong. I'm not slamming on Washington, because he was a genius who did much good as well, but the policy he advocated of passivity and appeasement only encouraged white rule and deepened the violence and bigotry and persecution against his people.

This is a pretendy fun time game where we try to become the mightiest wizard in the realm. But that doesn't mean we can't draw parallel lessons from real life. It is still and always wrong to appease prejudice or acknowledge it as something worthy of consideration. Always, always, always.




Is it fair, no. However, will it be more effective at dispelling prejudices than acting normal? Yes. That is the heart of the matter. Is it fair compared to what you want to accomplish. It would be any person's reasonable assumption that Legacy players would want their format to grow, so they must do things that they might consider unfair. Tough, that's life. Welcome to the real world.


I would wager I am more familiar with the real world than you are. What you're missing is that it doesn't work. Here's where the entire theory falls flat on it's face; people are always going to be willing to make exceptions.

Have you ever heard the phrases, "I'm not a racist, but...", or, "Now, one of my best friends is black", or, "There are, of course, lots of hard-working, honest Muslims"?

Have you ever heard someone describes as "A sharp, take-charge woman", with a strange and unusual emphasis on the last word?

For that matter, perhaps you've recently heard a presidential candidate described as "Clean and articulate".

If you start acknowledging stereotypes as a reasonable baseline to work from, anything else simply becomes an exception. It will not change anyone's mind about what most of X group are like, ever. For instance, on occasion, more out of masochism than anything else, I visit FreeRepublic. There's a lot of blatant sexism on that site. There's less blatant racism, but racist stereotypes are still fairly easy to find. Nonetheless, you even drop the name "Condoleezza Rice" and every single poster turns into a giddy schoolgirl. Does the fact that they adore and idolize a single black woman mean that these previous stereotypes are forgotten? Not at all, it simply means that when people find a person of group X about whom they have Y stereotype, and Y doesn't hold, they become an exception- they're one of "The Good Ones".

I oppose this attitude precisely because it's ineffective at preventing the stereotyping of Legacy players, because that's simply not how the human mind works. Players at a Legacy event can behave the same way down to the last iota that a group of Standard players behave, but if you go into the scenario assuming that Legacy players are jerks, where you had no such assumption of Standard players, you're going to see a lot of confirmation, and you're going to acknowledge a few pleasant exceptions that won't impact your overall view too much, because they're just exceptions. It doesn't matter that Standard players were acting the exact same ways- you weren't looking for it then, and it's not confirming a "truth" you've been told. Any group of human beings, any individual, if you look for flaws, you're going to find them. That doesn't mean that you don't have the same flaws, it just means that in this case, you're given reason to take notice of them, so they come to light.

This is why this article is wrong. If you hold up Legacy players to a level of scrutiny where their every behavior has to be judged, you're putting them on an unfair bar where players of other formats would do just as poorly- and even if the majority of them are as reasonably polite and courteous as any human being can be expected to be, and even if they accept this stereotype and try to fight it, they're still going to be the exceptions- "The Good Ones".

[kirdape3]

Scrumdogg: The reason that I advocate the Premiere-level community is that they exert an influence far outweighing their actual numbers on planning Premiere-level events. Wizards caters to this community a great deal.

If you want to have more Grand Prixs, advocating that people simply not show up can't possibly be correct. Why would Wizards plan another Legacy Grand Prix if nobody showed up to this one, for whatever reason?

@IBA: Theory is all well and good, except that I have direct experience with another niche format with a community that's considered to be cantankerous by the larger Magic community. How did Vintage get to grow? Exactly the methodology that I propose. Ignore me if you want with a rant about how blacks and Muslims are discriminated against, but that to me is a pretty relevant counter. It's been done before.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

@IBA: Theory is all well and good, except that I have direct experience with another niche format with a community that's considered to be cantankerous by the larger Magic community. How did Vintage get to grow? Exactly the methodology that I propose. Ignore me if you want with a rant about how blacks and Muslims are discriminated against, but that to me is a pretty relevant counter. It's been done before.


You get out, you write about the format constructively, you demonstrate that everyone's pet deck will in fact get destroyed, and above all else you try to sell the format to people who don't have a clue. You know, what Bleiweiss advocated.

On what basis are you saying that Legacy players don't do those things?



Since it's easier to delete pesky people pointing out your bias than to actual deal with their arguments, I've been banned for repeating Bleweises' logic.

This is from the email I sent him, as I feel it's an important point;


I've had my own problems with BB's modding in the past but there's no way that what you posted could be considered intelligent discussion. Comparing Legacy players to blacks/Muslims because somebody on the Internet wrote a mean article is utterly and completely stupid. Grow up please.

Ah. This is where you and he are hung up.

The problem is one of reading comprehension;

Legacy players are not being compared to blacks or Muslims; people who have unthinking biases about Legacy players are being compared to people who have unthinking biases about blacks or Muslims. That's all.

I know that people with very little real world experience consider it tabboo to talk about minorities in any context; believe it or not, that comparison doesn't make the argument any less valid, though it does provide an easy cop-out for those who do not want to address it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy

[IndyTerminator]

This article has spawned stuff all over the place. What exactly are we trying to get from this. Ben is talking about the Legacy format being on its best behavior for the GP so Wizards will hold more Legacy GP's. I think it'll happen to regardless.

Frankly, I think the Legacy community is one of the more accessible and nicer formats to get into in real life but the online communities are pretty fragmented and isolated.

[frogboy]

the online communities are pretty fragmented and isolated.

The quality on Eternal forums is lightyears ahead of that of the Standard/Extended/Block forums, fwiw.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I think if Ben Bleiweiss wanted to firmly remove all doubt that he's simply an egotistical bully trying to build his own sandbox, banning Spatula was a good step in the right direction.

Frogboy, you want to be careful; I saw you actually questioning the almighty Mr. Bleiweiss, and as you know, he doesn't take kindly to such trolling. You want to be very careful, because being banned from the SCG forums would be an unmitigated disaster, since it's not like you could create a new account ten minutes later or anything if you really wanted to continue pointing out the numerous logical fallacies he employs (which seem to be rising exponentially, as he invents new logical fallacies to defend the previous ones with).

[Machinus]

For the little and likely nonexistent amount of formal training in logic that exists in this group, there sure is a lot of debate about and appeal to it. Does everyone just secretly wish they paid attention in math class?


as he invents new logical fallacies to defend the previous ones with

This seems to be a brilliant debate tactic that I had never considered adopting. If it weren't so comically absurd I might want to credit someone for being creative.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Does everyone just secretly wish they had paid attention in math class?


Regrets? I've had a few... but then again, too few to mention.

[Nihil Credo]

Not that Ben isn't a huge egomaniacal dick, because that was an estabilished fact well before that thread, but I think IBA's point isn't really as solid as it looks.

The problem is that when people ask a Muslim "please don't blow up yourself or beat your wife", they're asking them to do something that they're supposed to be doing already - and thus should enjoy the benefit of the doubt about. They implicitly claim that there is a real chance that the Muslim you're talking to does actually beat his wife.

Instead, in his article, Ben asks Legacy players to go out of their way to be friendly and nice. He's asking them to not just be as polite and helpful as should be expected by a civilised person, but to be exceptionally so, because he believes that would be a sound strategy for improving the format's public image. He is making no assumptions regarding those he is talking to.

To get back to your metaphor, it's like telling a Muslim "If you want to improve the public image of Muslims, it could be a good idea to be more lawful than the average - for example, you could go out of your way to denounce those who do act shady. Even though you're already behaving OK, in order to solve this problem it might help to do something that you aren't strictly required to do." This may or may not be sound advice, but it is in no way offensive, IMO.

[Peter_Rotten]

To get back to your metaphor, it's like telling a Muslim "If you want to improve the public image of Muslims, it could be a good idea to be more lawful than the average - for example, you could go out of your way to denounce those who do act shady. Even though you're already behaving OK, in order to solve this problem it might help to do something that you aren't strictly required to do." This may or may not be sound advice, but it is in no way offensive, IMO.

I am so DUMBFOUNDED by this logic.

I'll use an example to that is much closer to home for me:

Let's say that I have a student Ben McLegacy. For the whole school year, Ben McLegacy is a total pain in the ass. He talks while I'm talking, he shoots spitballs at my bald head, he makes fun of the pictures of my children, and he sniffs the girls' seats when they get up. Wow, what a jerk.

Next school year, I have a student Jack McLegacy. Recognizing that Jack McLegacy is Ben's younger brother, I move Jack to the front row and don't let him sit next to any girls. I remind Jack that since his brother was a total jerk, we expect that he will be a total jerk and it is his job to disprove that notion. In you opinion, should (or could) Jack be offended if I tell him on the first day of school that he should go out of his way to be polite, friendly, and socially acceptable.

Should there not be a certain tabla rusa in this situation? Could there not be one for the GP? Shouldn't Jack take some offense at being reminded to act in a civil manner? After all, I don't know Jack. go ahead and have fun with that pun - it's my own damn fault.

[Nihil Credo]

A) It is absolutely not Jack McLegacy's fault.
B) Yes, he should be offended that people judge him based on his brother's actions.

However, neither of those things in any way disproves the following claim: "If you go out of your way to be overtly polite and friendly, it will dispel others' unjustified opinions about you."

If you have a problem which is not your fault, you aren't required to solve it. But it does not mean that you cannot take measures to solve it. And pointing out that you have that *option* isn't offensive.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

B) Yes, he should be offended that people judge him based on his brother's actions.


And pointing out that you have that *option* isn't offensive.

Is it offensive to point out that Muslims have the option to not beat their wives? Why or why not? In what way is this any different than Legacy players, except scale of offensiveness?


I think the problem people have with the Muslim metaphor is that they'd like to think that small biases are acceptable, but they're SO not a racist, they can't even talk about racial or religious bias. That's just how much NOT a racist they are. Isn't it admirable?

So my question is; under this belief system, when is bias no longer acceptable? I mean, we've established that it's ok to have a bias against a hobby-built community, like Legacy players.

So why don't we go one step further?

Why doesn't Bleweis write an article, telling about how most Magic players are great guys, but there are a few who are anti-social and unhygeinic. So Magic players,

Wear deodorant.

Don't spit when you talk.

Don't wear sweatpants. (Only pedophiles wear sweatpants)

This would obviously be acceptable, since all I'm doing is asking people to make sure they do what they were doing anyway, right?

I mean, you can do that, right Nihil? You can make sure you wear deodorant and don't spit when you talk right? I have every confidence you can. And that you can start policing your fellow Magic players too. I want you to look at this as an oppourtunity to expand your player base.

This analogy only covers the basic reasons why Bleweis's article was offensive and patronizing. It doesn't address his double-standard regarding quotes or the fact that he treats the debacle the GP will be as if its no big deal, nevermind how little he's lost on it.

[Peter_Rotten]

I wrote this on SCG Forums:


I'm a bit flabbergasted how you (and to some extent, Ben) fail to consider hyperbole and analogy an effective discussion technique. To illustrate his point, IBA had taken this mildly insulting situation and compared it to a very insulting situation. We, as Americans, use analogies, similes, and metaphors so often that I, once again, am flabbergasted that you can so easily dismiss what I see as a rather effective example.

To which one member replied:



Yes, but is it necessarily the best use of hyperbole to DO so? The leap to a hyperbolic counter-argument (the subject of which was as loaded as could be) undermined it. Perhaps, as Mr. Kaplan suggested, had a less charged metaphor/comparison been used, the discussion could have gone better, and not descended into verbal broadsiding. Staying on topic, as several have done (I particularly liked the gentleman who said "Please don't generalize about me."), would serve better.

What do you think? Would simplicity serve IBA's goals in that thread better (and I'm assuming that he was not trolling)? Isn't this truly what is at the heart of the matter? "Please don't generalize about me."

[Slay]

A) It is absolutely not Jack McLegacy's fault.
B) Yes, he should be offended that people judge him based on his brother's actions.

However, neither of those things in any way disproves the following claim: "If you go out of your way to be overtly polite and friendly, it will dispel others' unjustified opinions about you."

If you have a problem which is not your fault, you aren't required to solve it. But it does not mean that you cannot take measures to solve it. And pointing out that you have that *option* isn't offensive.

It doesn't disprove the claim. The claim is correct. Here's another technically correct claim: "If you organize a bunch of sourcers and go between tables at the GP giving sloppy blowjobs to all the fat nerds there, it will dispel others' unjustified opinions about you."

The offensiveness we're seeing is that we're essentially being treated like second-class citizens, by being told that we basically can't gain respect as a forum by being a part of the community and building and improving decks, and just doing what we always do, like every other magic forum on the internet. That's offensive to me, I don't appreciate someone telling me that I need extra credit when the only basis for that is a stupid, long-outdated stereotype that hasn't been relevant to the community for about three years.

On a sidenote, I joined this forum because at MTGSalvation people were laughing about how stupid the 1.5 community is and how much flamewars they get into, and so far the only real flamewar I've been in has been in the dead Type 2 forum. :laugh:
-Slay

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I'm not sure what kind of analogy it is they want.

I'm a little dubious, since no one has really given a good reason why the difference actually effects the logic of the thing. It seems more like an easy cop-out by playing incredulous than an actual relevant point.

See the Style Over Substance Fallacy.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

To get back to your metaphor, it's like telling a Muslim "If you want to improve the public image of Muslims, it could be a good idea to be more lawful than the average - for example, you could go out of your way to denounce those who do act shady. Even though you're already behaving OK, in order to solve this problem it might help to do something that you aren't strictly required to do." This may or may not be sound advice, but it is in no way offensive, IMO.

This is offensive. If you doubt it, try it out on any Muslim friends you have.

You're still pushing the responsibility for the public image of Muslims on an individual who is completely innocent. This is simply unfair. Someone should not have to be a saint simply because others in the same group are acting like dicks. Gearhart and I may be dicks, but that doesn't obligate other Legacy players to bake Ben Bleiweiss muffins in order to redeem themselves (but I'd better not give Anusien ideas, anyway).

By indicating that your Muslim friend in question could raise the opinion of Muslims in general, which is first of all simply incorrect for the reasons of people always willing to take exceptions to their stereotypes that I went over, you are effectively saying that you think the actions of the "bad" Muslims reflect on him or her. If the positive connections exist, then the negative ones do, too; you're saying that it's okay for people to preemptively judge them based on a stereotype, because if you didn't, you would be attacking the stereotype directly, not trying to appease it by proving it wrong. It's wrong for people to have this stereotype regardless of whether or not it's proved in any given instance.



I wrote this on SCG Forums:



To which one member replied:



What do you think? Would simplicity serve IBA's goals in that thread better (and I'm assuming that he was not trolling)? Isn't this truly what is at the heart of the matter? "Please don't generalize about me."

I don't think so. The comparison was so fundamentally reasonable, and I went so out of my way to explain that I didn't think we were being sent to concentration camps, but that this was simply an analogy that essentially magnified the issue for easier inspection, that to ignore this and pretend to be outraged was simply a transparent debate tactic designed to allow them to ignore the issue. And I don't think you can argue with the willfully ignorant; any argument would've had some flaw they could've simply ignored; Ben Bleiweiss simply dismissing it as "trolling", for instance. I find it extremely difficult to imagine any rational interpretation of the "counter arguments" in that thread other than a shameless parade of logical fallacies designed only to demonstrate the supreme indifference of Bleiweiss and his lackies to anything that might resemble the truth.

[Peter_Rotten]

I'm beyond frustrated with the reading comprehension of some SCG forum members.


Try to make this ridiculous analogy between Legacy players and blacks/Muslims in real life. It doesn't matter how "right" you are, you will get laughed at or shunned.

How many times can it be explained?

Here is a little problem (Ben's article). Let's use an analogy or hyperbole as a microscope to enlarge and examine the little problem so that we may better understand it.

Let's use a larger more important example to better understand the small example.

[Nihil Credo]

@SpatulaOfTheAges: I'm getting the impression you didn't read my post very well. Throughout your whole reply you keep making examples which involve suggesting people to do something that they are expected to do anyway (not beat your wife; wash; etc.). This is specifically the opposite of what I was talking about - i.e. that suggesting to do "normal" stuff is offensive, but suggesting to be exceptional isn't.
Also, I fully accept the use of the Muslim metaphor, and in no way think that touching an emotionally sensitive subject affects the reasoning behind it. So that's another thing you don't need to call me on.


It doesn't disprove the claim. The claim is correct. Here's another technically correct claim: "If you organize a bunch of sourcers and go between tables at the GP giving sloppy blowjobs to all the fat nerds there, it will dispel others' unjustified opinions about you." Do you find that offensive? Because I don't.


The offensiveness we're seeing is that we're essentially being treated like second-class citizens, by being told that we basically can't gain respect as a forum by being a part of the community and building and improving decks, and just doing what we always do, like every other magic forum on the internet. That's offensive to me, I don't appreciate someone telling me that I need extra credit when the only basis for that is a stupid, long-outdated stereotype that hasn't been relevant to the community for about three years.Yet we've "been a part of the community and built and improved decks" for years (I'm a relatively new Sourcer, but I've been fiddling with Legacy since the B/R separation), and the stereotype is still there. Is it unreasonable to deduce from this that another kind of action would help? More to the point, is it offensive to make such a deduction?


You're still pushing the responsibility for the public image of Muslims on an individual who is completely innocent. This is simply unfair. Someone should not have to be a saint simply because others in the same group are acting like dicks. Gearhart and I may be dicks, but that doesn't obligate other Legacy players to bake Ben Bleiweiss muffins in order to redeem themselves (but I'd better not give Anusien ideas, anyway).
Once again, please read my post with more focus. I put a lot of focus in not requiring anything from our friend the civilised Muslim. I have underlined how they do not have any responsibility regarding the public image of Muslims, but they do have the power to affect it.

That's very, very important.

I think you're also wrong on two points in the next paragraph:


By indicating that your Muslim friend in question could raise the opinion of Muslims in general, which is first of all simply incorrect for the reasons of people always willing to take exceptions to their stereotypes that I went over, you are effectively saying that you think the actions of the "bad" Muslims reflect on him or her."Indicating that your Muslim friend in question could raise the opinion of Muslims in general" may very well be incorrect (in fact, that's what I personally believe), but it's not offensive. And we are debating offensiveness here, not correctness.

Also, what I would be saying is that people think the actions of the "bad" Muslims reflect on him or her. That is just stating a fact, even if I dislike that fact.


If the positive connections exist, then the negative ones do, too; you're saying that it's okay for people to preemptively judge them based on a stereotype, because if you didn't, you would be attacking the stereotype directly, not trying to appease it by proving it wrong. It's wrong for people to have this stereotype regardless of whether or not it's proved in any given instance.No, you are once again putting words in my mouth here. Please don't confuse my opinions with those of the people you have been debating with on SCG.

I would in no way be accepting the existence of the stereotype as something OK. Of course people who hold that stereotype should be challenged on it. But that is not mutually exclusive with setting up counter-examples.
Challenging one's misconceptions is a moral duty. Behaving in a way that is exceptionally opposed to the stereotype is an option. But either action can help, and to point out the existence of the latter does not automatically mean to argue against the former.

[MattH]

The offensiveness we're seeing is that we're essentially being treated like second-class citizens, by being told that we basically can't gain respect as a forum by being a part of the community and building and improving decks, and just doing what we always do, like every other magic forum on the internet.
No, that is wrong. What you are being told is that you can't gain respect by participating in the community, building decks, and being rude, xenophobic, and too often presuming bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. This is true.

You are also being told that you CAN gain respect by participating in the community, building decks, and being polite and welcoming. This is also true, if presumptuous.

The point here is that acting like a dick spoils and ruins whatever other contributions you have made.

And not just for those who act in such a negative manner, but also for anyone who tacitly or explicitly lends support to those few who DO display such negative traits.

If some guy acts like a dick, and you congratulate him for defending your format against those oppressive interlopers, you lose your presumption of innocence.

It IS unfair to remind a random Muslim that he doesn't have to beat his wife. It is NOT unfair to remind a known wifebeater of this, and it is NOT unfair to remind the guy who cheered him on, either. That is the difference between that analogy and the Legacy situation.

There is a difference between engaging in a behavior, supporting it, ignoring it, denouncing it, and counteracting it.

If the rude and the xenophobic were usually ignored or roundly denounced, Elgin(s) would have a point. But they are not, and when one of the major messages communicated to format outsiders is, "Stay out of our* format," Ben's advice to actively denounce the assholes of the format is reasonable and legitimate.

*setting up an us/them, 'you're not one of us' dichotomy

[hi-val]

Yup, but I think it was unavoidable when his expertise on Hulk Flash was called into question. What shocked me the most is how rude Ben B. is, telling people to GO AWAY! What doesn't shock me is how Talen Lee, Smennen, and Anusien come to Ben's aid. I do wonder why more "company men" haven't rushed to Ben's aid.

If you think for a minute that Steve is someone's bitch and will argue on their behalf about something that he doesn't personally care about, you couldn't be more wrong. He's one of the most-read writers on their site and the reason for hundreds of subscriptions; he could probably FedEx human feces to Ben and retain his job.

And IBA killed this thread on page 4 when he linked to Wikipedia :D

[Slay]

No, that is wrong. What you are being told is that you can't gain respect by participating in the community, building decks, and being rude, xenophobic, and too often presuming bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. This is true.

You are also being told that you CAN gain respect by participating in the community, building decks, and being polite and welcoming. This is also true, if presumptuous.

The point here is that acting like a dick spoils and ruins whatever other contributions you have made.

And not just for those who act in such a negative manner, but also for anyone who tacitly or explicitly lends support to those few who DO display such negative traits.

If some guy acts like a dick, and you congratulate him for defending your format against those oppressive interlopers, you lose your presumption of innocence.

It IS unfair to remind a random Muslim that he doesn't have to beat his wife. It is NOT unfair to remind a known wifebeater of this, and it is NOT unfair to remind the guy who cheered him on, either. That is the difference between that analogy and the Legacy situation.

There is a difference between engaging in a behavior, supporting it, ignoring it, denouncing it, and counteracting it.

If the rude and the xenophobic were usually ignored or roundly denounced, Elgin(s) would have a point. But they are not, and when one of the major messages communicated to format outsiders is, "Stay out of our* format," Ben's advice to actively denounce the assholes of the format is reasonable and legitimate.

*setting up an us/them, 'you're not one of us' dichotomy

If you would mind giving examples on when a respected forums member said "get out of our format" to a new player who wasn't being disrespectful or ignorant and then was e-highfived by fellow respected forums members, then you might have a point. But this doesn't happen, and most examples brought up are usually just bias reading things that weren't there.


It IS unfair to remind a random Muslim that he doesn't have to beat his wife. It is NOT unfair to remind a known wifebeater of this, and it is NOT unfair to remind the guy who cheered him on, either. That is the difference between that analogy and the Legacy situation.

None of us are doing that, and none of us are cheering them on. Besides, asking the entire source to do that is much more analogous to asking the acquaintances of a wifebeater to not beat their wives, and to donate to anti-domestic violence causes.


Yet we've "been a part of the community and built and improved decks" for years (I'm a relatively new Sourcer, but I've been fiddling with Legacy since the B/R separation), and the stereotype is still there. Is it unreasonable to deduce from this that another kind of action would help? More to the point, is it offensive to make such a deduction?

No, because the stereotype isn't true. If a bunch of Mexican-Americans get rejected from jobs because "lol beaners are lazy and steal", they won't start getting jobs if they work harder, the stereotype will remain. As IBA said in the SCG thread, people can have people they like within a stereotype and simply think they're the exception to the rule, and most sourcers are still assholes. It only furthers the notion that the stereotype exists in real life if you try to publicly do the opposite of the stereotype for the reason that other people look down on you because of it.
-Slay

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Once again, please read my post with more focus. I put a lot of focus in not requiring anything from our friend the civilised Muslim. I have underlined how they do not have any responsibility regarding the public image of Muslims, but they do have the power to affect it.

That's very, very important.

This distinction is less important than you think, because words have implications.

"Would you like to donate to our charity? I mean, if you just donated five bucks that you know you can spare, you could stop children from dying agonizingly painful deaths. But I mean, I guess it's up to you if you want children to die agonizingly painful deaths or not."

You can say that they merely have the power but not the responsibility to act that way, but at that point you're merely trying to guilt trip them into doing it. If they accept the premise that they have some special power to alter stereotypes of Muslims (which is of very limited truth to begin with, similarly to my ability to save starving children with a few books), then any action on their part other than using such power becomes, to them, unthinkable, at lest if they are moral human beings.


I think you're also wrong on two points in the next paragraph:

"Indicating that your Muslim friend in question could raise the opinion of Muslims in general" may very well be incorrect (in fact, that's what I personally believe), but it's not offensive. And we are debating offensiveness here, not correctness.

Also, what I would be saying is that people think the actions of the "bad" Muslims reflect on him or her. That is just stating a fact, even if I dislike that fact.

If you are simply bringing up a stereotype that exists, I think it is simply wrong to do anything other than thoroughly denounce it to your friend. They should not think for a moment that you think there is validity to this claim or that you expect any behavior of them to "compensate" for this alleged group crime. Bringing the fact that people think this randomly, without such denunciation, indicates that you support this view to some extent, whether you mean it do indicate this or not.


No, you are once again putting words in my mouth here. Please don't confuse my opinions with those of the people you have been debating with on SCG.

I would in no way be accepting the existence of the stereotype as something OK. Of course people who hold that stereotype should be challenged on it. But that is not mutually exclusive with setting up counter-examples.
Challenging one's misconceptions is a moral duty. Behaving in a way that is exceptionally opposed to the stereotype is an option. But either action can help, and to point out the existence of the latter does not automatically mean to argue against the former.

It would be hard to debate this point, as you list no examples of what an exceptional counter-example to a stereotype might be. Being courteous at an event or not beating your wife are basic things that everyone should be doing; they are in no way exceptional, which is certainly what I took exception to with this article.

However, even without an example, my inclination is that the theoretical point of encouraging actual exceptional behavior is wrong. It still essentially amounts to appeasement. Certainly if a Muslim individual wants to dedicate their life to working for the Red Cross and helping the poor and disfranchised orphans of the world, that is commendable, but I don't think anything healthy can come if they do this solely because they feel obligated to serve the PR of Islam in general.


The point here is that acting like a dick spoils and ruins whatever other contributions you have made.

And not just for those who act in such a negative manner, but also for anyone who tacitly or explicitly lends support to those few who DO display such negative traits.

If some guy acts like a dick, and you congratulate him for defending your format against those oppressive interlopers, you lose your presumption of innocence.


You mean like having your article questioned in a rational, polite, and well-detailed argument, and responding with bannings, ignoring the argument to call people trolls? And then everyone high fives you for dealing with these trolls, even though all the arguments still exist, unanswered, and they can't actually point to anything that was actually insulting or belligerent? Would that be a sign that I should start presuming anyone from this community to be a dick unless they can prove otherwise?

[Peter_Rotten]

Although it's rather silly to quote and KrissKross (will make you jump-jump) the SCG thread with this one, I don't think I want to post many of my thoughts there.

diopter posts this in an edit on that forum:


...How about using actually apt analogies that don't try to sensationalize the matter and aren't offensive?

Here are some examples:
- At an event that involves multiple schools, a teacher tells his or her class to be on their best behavior. He or she indicates that the actions of a few loudmouths or jerks will paint a bad image of their school, whereas politeness and courtesy will make the school look good.
- At a party, a parent tells his or her children to be on their best behavior. Their poor behavior, however far removed it may be from the character of the parents, will still reflect on said character of said parents.
- At a church, a priest tells his parish to be courteous and accepting of people not of their faith, along the lines of "love thy neighbor".

In all of these examples, people are being reminded to display courtesy, politeness, understanding, and general human goodness. In each case there is a stereotype:
- Young kids in school will misbehave, and that reflects on the school
- Kids in general will misbehave, and that reflects on the parents
- Catholics will shun other people who don't believe in their faith, and that reflects on the religion

In each case, the people in question are being reminded to behave like responsible human beings, such that this stereotype is not perpetuated.

Diopter's examples, I think lack an important aspect that made the article a little offensive. These examples do not contain a sort of statement like, "you have a bad reputation, so you need to act exceptionally good." Statement's like the following:

- At an event that involves multiple schools, a teacher tells his or her class to be on their best behavior. He or she indicates that the school has a reputation for acting like jerks and the actions of a few loudmouths or jerks will paint a bad image of their school, whereas extra politeness and courtesy will make the school look good.

- At a party, a parent tells his or her children to be on their best behavior since the friends they hang out with have a reputation for acting like jerks. Their poor behavior, however far removed it may be from the character of the parents, will still reflect on said character of said parents.

- At a church, a priest tells his parish to be extra courteous and accepting of people not of their faith, along the lines of "love thy neighbor", because their parish is being accused of being jerks.


There's even a example using religion in there, to teach the Source forum members that if you want to use religion in an example, be tactful about it.

I do not see Jack's examples as tactless. I guess Diopter is saying that Jack's examples were so extreme that they made the issue laughable and offensive. I simply don't see it that way.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

That's probably because you have a modicum of common fucking sense, PR. Really, don't worry about it. You're not going to be able to get them to engage in actual discussion or to come post somewhere where they don't have the protection of the mod banning their enemies.

You're also missing that those examples don't involve singling anyone out, and are in fact equivalent to what I suggested Bleiweiss should have said instead, which is that everyone behave themselves at the GP and just in general. But that so doesn't even begin to cover the breadth of the problems with everything that has been said in that thread that I'm inclined to simply consider it a lost cause.

You should know that diopter also behaved this exact same way when he was trying to claim that Hulk-Flash was a bad deck in the Legacy forums, but was unable to actually articulate any reasons- any comparison to cards currently banned elicited a simple, "Well, that's a ridiculous comparison", lacking in any explanation or logic. He simply ignored points he didn't like and pretended to find others outrageous or ridiculous without cause.

[Peter_Rotten]

But that so doesn't even begin to cover the breadth of the problems with everything that has been said in that thread that I'm inclined to simply consider it a lost cause.

/sigh

Maybe you're right, but I can't help going back to that thread and this one. Sometimes I don't know when to cut my losses.

[Cait_Sith]

/sigh

Maybe you're right, but I can't help going back to that thread and this one. Sometimes I don't know when to cut my losses.

I keep reading what diopter posted and it seems that he, like many others, does not actually understand things like the hyperbolic statement. I have learned to ignore their ENL. Except when English actually isn't their first language.

[Pinder]

You can say that they merely have the power but not the responsibility to act that way, but at that point you're merely trying to guilt trip them into doing it.

"With great power, comes great responsibility"

Sorry, I just had to :tongue:. You guys can get back to the intelligent discussion now.

[Machinus]

Regrets? I've had a few... but then again, too few to mention.

I suppose this makes sense for those who are out of school. What about everyone else? For the pedants and egomaniacs, being in school is an inspiration to act like the biggest douchebag possible.

On topic, let me share one of my life philosophies with all of you in the hope that it will improve your lives.

And god said, "Do not read the SCG forums. Ever."

It works great.

[Atwa]

On topic, let me share one of my life philosophies with all of you in the hope that it will improve your lives.

And god said, "Do not read the SCG forums. Ever."

It works great.

QFMFT

The only times I read some of the SCG fora is when there is a link from the source to it, and I've accomplished to never ever look at the SCG fora at any other time. Man I feel good.

I also used to read some of the articles over there, but more and more I feel like doing something more usefull in that time instead, something like polishing my smallest toenail on my left foot.

A few years ago the articles were pretty good, and although there are still some hidden gems, most of it just started to suck. I even had my premium membership expire last week, since it isn't worth my money anymore.

I still occasionaly go to SCG for the Legacy articles, which are the only ones who've gotten better over the years, but after reading some of Anusien's articles, I try to avoid them. Don't get me wrong, I like the work the guy puts into the format, but most of his articles are about some petdecks without any actual testing or tournament results. I see better posts and lists in new and development.

In time, I've learned to only go to SCG only when an articles is linked trough the source, and avoid SCG at any other time. I've learned to actually smile during my time on the internet.

[diopter]

As a Catholic, I know there is a stereotype against our religion as being less accepting. The church I used to attend 2 years ago was led by a priest who preached about overcoming judgment and reaching out to our neighbors. Most of us already do, but he was reminding us to make a conscious effort to reach out, both to improve ourselves and our community. So yeah, he pretty much said:


- At a church, a priest tells his parish to be extra courteous and accepting of people not of their faith, along the lines of "love thy neighbor", because their parish is being accused of being jerks.

except obviously not in such raw language (then again, Ben didn't use the kind of language you are using either). Did I get offended? No. I know there is a problem, and I know I can do something about it.

Legacy players, you are receiving guidance on how to grow acceptance and goodwill for your community. You can take it or leave it, but I am sad that most of you are leaving it.



You should know that diopter also behaved this exact same way when he was trying to claim that Hulk-Flash was a bad deck in the Legacy forums, but was unable to actually articulate any reasons- any comparison to cards currently banned elicited a simple, "Well, that's a ridiculous comparison", lacking in any explanation or logic. He simply ignored points he didn't like and pretended to find others outrageous or ridiculous without cause.

If you're gonna call me out, at least get your damn facts straight. I said the following:
- Flash is broken
- Flash is not invincible
- Flash does not deserve banning
- Flash is not as strong as some people were claiming at the time (consistent turn 0/1 kills? please).
- Flash is good for Legacy

If I said that Flash was a bad deck, then I'm sorry, I don't know what the hell I was smoking. But I don't recall ever saying that, ever. I have never thought Flash was a bad deck. Flash is an outstanding deck. I love that Flash is legal for the GP.

[Atwa]

I love that Flash is legal for the GP.

1. How long have you been playing Legacy?

2. Did you play Vintage before switching over to Legacy?

I really want to know these fact before I even start responding to you.

[diopter]

1. How long have you been playing Legacy?

2. Did you play Vintage before switching over to Legacy?

I really want to know these fact before I even start responding to you.

1. Are you an aggro player?

2. Do you dislike playing with certain cards in your format?

I really want to know these fact(sic) before I even start responding to you.

[Atwa]

1.
I play every archtype in the format:
- Angel Stompy
- Enchantress
- Iggy Pop
- TES
- MUC
- Survival
- Lot of random decks and team prototypes

2.
I feel every card deserves to be played, as long as the diversity of the format doesn't get ruined. I am actually an advocate to unban as much as cards as long as the format stays healty. Having Legacy swaped into a 'deck vs counterdeck' is not what this format should be.

Now answer my questions. Replying to questioins with questions of your own is really childish. At least answer them and after that ask some of your own.

BTW, I'm off to bed, I'll see your reply in the morning.

[diopter]

@atwa2002:

1.) I got into both Vintage and Legacy at the same time, I wanna say 2 years ago, but in reality I'm not entirely certain. I liked Vintage better, so I leaned towards it. I still follow Legacy.

2.) As per above, I got into them simultaneously.

Happy? Don't really see why it is relevant. About as irrelevant as my questions. Which was the point.

And I don't think every card deserves to be played in any format. Some cards are just that much more powerful, especially in the Eternal formats. It may be fun to have 64 viable decks (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456) in the format. But with a cardpool as insane as Legacy has, with cards like FoW and Ritual and LED that beg deck design to bend towards them, I just wonder why the metagame is still so random.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

As a Catholic, I know there is a stereotype against our religion as being less accepting. The church I used to attend 2 years ago was led by a priest who preached about overcoming judgment and reaching out to our neighbors. Most of us already do, but he was reminding us to make a conscious effort to reach out, both to improve ourselves and our community. So yeah, he pretty much said:



except obviously not in such raw language (then again, Ben didn't use the kind of language you are using either). Did I get offended? No. I know there is a problem, and I know I can do something about it.

Legacy players, you are receiving guidance on how to grow acceptance and goodwill for your community. You can take it or leave it, but I am sad that most of you are leaving it.

There's another difference you're missing. This wasn't a private discussion, and it didn't come from inside the community. That's fucking vital.

A better comparison would be being at some community festival or something, and someone gets onstage and randomly decides to address your parish. "Now, a lot of people in the community think that (your church) are a bunch of exclusive, judgmental assholes. Now, I know you're mostly great guys, but to present a better image to the community, why don't you all refrain from condemning people who don't act like you think is appropriate? And if you see someone from your group screaming at your neighbors that they're going to Hell, maybe you could say something about it."

The problems with this, and with Bleiweiss's article, are;

- He's not part of the community he's talking down to. I have a lot of problems with America, but I don't think it's appropriate for Europeans to get into why our country sucks. It's not appropriate for white people to talk about what's wrong with black culture, or vice versa. I think a lot of guys are chauvenists, but it's completely inappropriate for a woman to go on a rant about what pigs men are, even if couched in more diplomatic language. You may tell your brother he has a weight problem, but you'd be pissed if some stranger did it. Those who have no stake in or attachment to the culture in question don't get to criticize it.

- He's using a public forum, which is fucked up for a couple reasons. Firstly, simply because it seems more like an attempted shame tactic- "You Legacy players, you act this way. Why don't you clean up your act?" But more importantly, bringing it up in a public way for discussion validates the stereotype in a way that a private discussion, such as we've had in NoVA, wouldn't. In private you can discuss both ways to fix the problem, as well as the source of the problem and whether or not it's even accurate. Bringing it up for public discussion as Bleiweiss did essentially makes it fact in the mind of the reader who is otherwise ignorant. The problem is being discussed, therefore it exists. This in turn amplifies the problem because now people are going to look for it, which means any incident of rudeness is amplified and taken to be representative of a greater trend- when, in fact, some people everywhere are going to be dicks.



If you're gonna call me out, at least get your damn facts straight. I said the following:
- Flash is broken
- Flash is not invincible
- Flash does not deserve banning
- Flash is not as strong as some people were claiming at the time (consistent turn 0/1 kills? please).
- Flash is good for Legacy

If I said that Flash was a bad deck, then I'm sorry, I don't know what the hell I was smoking. But I don't recall ever saying that, ever. I have never thought Flash was a bad deck. Flash is an outstanding deck. I love that Flash is legal for the GP.

I remember asking you why you thought it was necessary to turn Legacy into Vintage, and require every single deck to run Force of Will and Brainstorm and kill all but a couple very narrow archetypes, and not getting a reply. You also said simultaneously that Flash is broken but not overpowered. I'm not sure we're even speaking the same language anymore.

I'm also looking back at your other posts, and I'm still wondering why you actually seem to think that there's an objective measure of "good" deck, but you honestly seem to have been frustrated by the idea that so called "bad decks", i.e., ones not running Brainstorm and Force of Will, routinely smashed all the "good" decks people "should" have been playing in Legacy. Your actual entire argument for Hulk-Flash being good for the format seems to have been that it will make it look more like Vintage. Not to derail this thread onto Hulk-Flash specifically, but I'm wondering how anyone can think growing Legacy as a format means making it the dumbed down version of a format that a relative few players enjoy and that already exists.


Edit: N/m, you already responded.



And I don't think every card deserves to be played in any format. Some cards are just that much more powerful, especially in the Eternal formats. It may be fun to have 64 viable decks (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5456) in the format. But with a cardpool as insane as Legacy has, with cards like FoW and Ritual and LED that beg deck design to bend towards them, I just wonder why the metagame is still so random.

It's random because the decks with FoW and Daze keep the decks with LED and Ritual in check, and other decks beat the decks with FoW and Daze. Making combo able to run FoW and Daze kind of ruins that delicate balance. Let me quote myself.


To go a little more into depth as to the why, let's boil it down to the basics:


The point of a game is to be fun.

Therefore, the function of the banned and restricted list should be to make the format more fun. That's really the only concern. Worrying about following a specific and arbitrary set of rules is pointless, unless those rules in turn serve to make the game more fun. No emergency bannings is a perfect example- as a policy, it's function is to make the game more fun by preventing a sudden and sweeping alteration to the format in question that negates testing. The necessity of this is arguable, but it certainly doesn't apply when the card in question didn't actually exist until a week ago.

Now, the real issue here is: What's fun? Casual players say that playing without concern for winning is fun, which I'm sure most of us agree that this is a complete copout.

It's a simplification, but I'm going to say that fun is the compound of the level to which playskill is rewarded + surprise. The second is actually just a subset of the first, but I want to highlight it.

The playskill factor is obvious; there's a reason that there are hugely popular Poker and Street Fighter tournaments, but pretty much only casual players care about War, Mortal Kombat and Rock-Paper-Scissors (Yes, I know that there's a World RPS tournament, but I also know that last year it was won by a guy wearing an evening dress). We like games that reward skill over luck because it gives us empowerment, even those of us who choose not to use it. Casual players pretend not to understand that trying to win is, itself, part of the fun, but we know differently.

The second factor, surprise, or variety, is not only something we naturally desire, it's also, as I said, a subset of skill. It creates more interest in the game by causing us to engage in the game more and to think harder. A two game metagame is not only boring, it's inherently less skill-oriented than a metagame with three dozen decks. All I have to do is playtest one matchup; my deck choices are easy, either I play the deck that beats everything, or I try to hate it. People keep insisting that Hulk-Flash will force people to build "good decks"- a term that is without meaning outside of the context of the metagame. Certainly the decks that won tournaments a month ago weren't bad decks at all, or they wouldn't have beaten the other decks being played. What people really mean by this is that Hulk-Flash's presence makes it very, very easy for them to build those "good decks"; instead of having to worry about a dozen matchups against every archetype, as in the Legacy of last month, all you have to worry about is either playing the best build of Hulk-Flash, and having good game against almost everything; or potentially trying to find a deck that smashes Hulk-Flash and hoping to end up at the top tables where you'll have an easy time of it.

This is why Vintage gets so little respect from most players of other formats. Yeah, we know the cards are powerful, but power is relative. Vintage players boast about how many math problems they have to do with their one-of laden lists, but in reality they have far less to worry about. Every deck they're facing is going to be either Blue or Brown. Black might figure into it somewhat, but in reality you've got little to no tension in the format. Sure, maybe you'll change six cards around and be playing a deck with a newer, cooler name, but you know exactly what problems you're going to run into when you play serious Vintage. There's only a couple of strategies, and you know all the counter strategies to them. Specific scenarios might require certain math skills, but the metagame in general is a very non-skill intensive one.

Legacy, in contrast, had a terrific amount of tension last month. Before Hulk-Flash was around, I was planning on playing control, and let me tell you, there are a lot of [Censored] tough choices. Every card that counters one strategy might fail against another. Every card asks; What strategy is this good against? Where is it better? Is this worth the slot, or another card? How much room can I spare for threats? Will I lose if I don't have enough answers? Will I go to time if I can't find a kill fast enough? In contrast, every decklist that's gone up to counter Hulk-Flash is running the exact same answers; Stifle, Force, Daze, sometimes Duress and Unmask. These narrow control strategies were terrible to rely on in the previous metagame because you could easily be smacked out of the water by Goblins or RGBSA, or another deck that simply didn't care that much.

And despite the insistence of terrible players that aggro requires no skill to play, contrary to all evidence and experience, aggro decks have to make similar choices. Even Goblins had to make serious metagame choices in the sideboard and even maindeck choices- what color splash do you want? Therapy for combo decks? Green to kill Equipment and Needles? White to kill Silver Knight? How many Siege-Gangs? Do I cut Fanatics? Do I need a Sharpshooter main for Empty the Warrens tokens?

In the metagame with numerous colors, archetypes, and decks viable, these questions become extremely difficult to answer, and proper sideboard building is nightmarishly difficult. This metagame's only redeeming factor is that it's so suddenly and drastically different that these questions seem new and exciting, but that's good for about two weeks, because this is simply a much easier metagame to solve.

And that's why a U/B metagame with only a few decks is bad. It's less skill intensive and, in the long run, far less surprising, and therefore less fun. The only people who could possibly desire such a metagame are those who only want to win, no matter how unchallenging the game. And if that's your bag, I suggest you start challenging grade-schoolers to arm-wrestling contests. Magic isn't a serious money-making endeavor for anyone except Wizards. We're in this for the love of the game. That means wanting it to be an exciting challenge. Getting an easy out on which deck to play negates that.


Or, essentially, a game with more playskill is more fun, and metagaming and sideboarding are skills. Cutting them out with a stagnant metagame like Vintage actually makes the game less fun for everyone who doesn't want to just focus on convoluted math problems.

[TeenieBopper]

I think you all are a bunch of assholes.

[frogboy]

God I have such a mancrush on TB.

[Phantom]

God I have such a mancrush on TB.

It is your duty as a good Legacy player to suppress your feelings and publicly denounce others with said feelings less the Legacy community starve to death.

[Nihil Credo]

Let me repeat the proposal I wrote a few pages ago: on June 1st, Flash gets banned, then IBA and Anusien make out with each other and swear everlasting love. Once both these things happen, Legacy will become heaven once again.

And now the long-winded reply to IBA I patiently wrote while on the train:


This distinction is less important than you think, because words have implications.

"Would you like to donate to our charity? I mean, if you just donated five bucks that you know you can spare, you could stop children from dying agonizingly painful deaths. But I mean, I guess it's up to you if you want children to die agonizingly painful deaths or not."

You can say that they merely have the power but not the responsibility to act that way, but at that point you're merely trying to guilt trip them into doing it. If they accept the premise that they have some special power to alter stereotypes of Muslims (which is of very limited truth to begin with, similarly to my ability to save starving children with a few books), then any action on their part other than using such power becomes, to them, unthinkable, at lest if they are moral human beings.
Very close, but not quite correct. If they accept that premise yet choose not to use their power, they are showing that they judged the annoyance of taking action to be worse than the annoyance of leaving the situation as it is. In the charity example, that would you value your $5 more than a children's life (remember, this is assuming you accept their premise), which most people consider pretty callous. In the Muslim example, you'd rather let the stereotypes persist than speak out against the terrorist imams, which may or may not be a sensible choice depending on the repercussions you would face by speaking out. In the Legacy case, you'd rather be called "one of those Legacy jerks" than spend a few afternoons gunslinging and playing deck clinic with a bunch of kids and their Elfball decks, a choice for which I doubt you would be despised.

(Aside: it's interesting to note, from a dialectic point of view, that the use of emotionally charged comparison - Muslims and dying children - has been so far irrelevant to the scenario, since we were discussing logicals connection. However, now that "guilt tripping" and other emotional factors are brought into play, the fact that we're talking about a card game rather than a world-sized cultural conflict does come into play.)


If you are simply bringing up a stereotype that exists, I think it is simply wrong to do anything other than thoroughly denounce it to your friend. They should not think for a moment that you think there is validity to this claim or that you expect any behavior of them to "compensate" for this alleged group crime. Bringing the fact that people think this randomly, without such denunciation, indicates that you support this view to some extent, whether you mean it do indicate this or not.This is a point on which I fear we'll have to agree to disagree. If they're my friend, I should damn well hope they trust me not to believe in stupid stereotypes, even if I point out their existence to them.
Here's a real-life example: about a year ago I invited an high-school friend of mine to spend a weekend in the city where I study. This guy has a weird fascination with post-Fascist mysticism (as a cultural ideal, not a political model), and since the city is pretty hardcore left-wing - there are always Communist and anti-globalisation activists around, and the most extremist ones are pretty unpleasant people - I told him that he'd better not wear his Julius Evola t-shirts while in town, or risk some serious harrassment. I knew he and his pals are OK guys who wouldn't even dream of giving trouble to a stoner, a Muslim or a Communist (despite disagreeing pretty strongly with their ways of life), and he knew I knew it, so the thought that I might be sharing that prejudice against him never even crossed his mind.


It would be hard to debate this point, as you list no examples of what an exceptional counter-example to a stereotype might be. Being courteous at an event or not beating your wife are basic things that everyone should be doing; they are in no way exceptional, which is certainly what I took exception to with this article.Well, I just went back to re-read Ben's article, and I'd have to say both are present here.

For reference:


How can you make Grand Prix: Columbus the best experience possible for others?

Be polite and courteous to people, especially those you don't know. Encourage their ideas, don't talk down to them, and don't act like you are “better than them” because you are more familiar with the format than they are.

Don't engender an attitude that Hulk Flash is going to ruin the Grand Prix. It's not. It will change up the metagame considerably than if it didn't exist, but the deck will not be the majority of the field (though it may be the most played deck), and it can be hated out or beaten. The past Extended season was one of the most popular constructed formats in the past few years, and the current Legacy format has a lot in common with the past Extended season.

Be inclusive. If you're going to play Type Four, invite new players to join in. Offer to gunsling games against more casual players, and give them tips on how to improve their decks. Make the Grand Prix an experience where non-Legacy regulars feel invited to become a part of the Legacy community, and not an us-versus-them game of “we must beat everyone else to prove how good we are at our own format.”

I think that Grand Prix: Columbus has the potential to be an amazing event, and one that can convert a lot of people into play the Legacy format. It will take the efforts of the many to make the Grand Prix as palatable as possible to non-Legacy regulars. If you see a Legacy regular being a negative influence at the event, don't hold your tongue — say something to them! Pull them aside privately, and say “Hey man, you're being a bit of a jerk there — did you think that what you said might put people off from our format?”

I'd say the first paragraphs is behaviour to be expected, and so does count as offensive.
The second one is just a metagame opinion, which I'm pretty sure is completely wrong but anyway isn't relevant to what we are debating.
The third and fourth ones are exceptional behaviour.


However, even without an example, my inclination is that the theoretical point of encouraging actual exceptional behavior is wrong. It still essentially amounts to appeasement. Certainly if a Muslim individual wants to dedicate their life to working for the Red Cross and helping the poor and disfranchised orphans of the world, that is commendable, but I don't think anything healthy can come if they do this solely because they feel obligated to serve the PR of Islam in general.

Magdi Allam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdi_Allam). Despite having grown to dislike the man because of some stances he has taken in the last year or so, I recognise that in his role as a steadfast voice for moderate Muslims in Italy he has done a lot to improve the public image of Islamic citizens in the country.
He may not have done it out of a sense of obligation towards other Muslims, but after reading most of his stuff, my guess is that he definitely did it out of pride - because he actively wanted to dispel the stereotype.

[Peter_Rotten]

From his latest post:


If people want to take offense to my article, that's their fault, not mine.

That is just low.
That is just wrong.

I hope that he does not apply that logic to more important issues outside of magical card games. If you're offended, it's your fault.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

This is a point on which I fear we'll have to agree to disagree. If they're my friend, I should damn well hope they trust me not to believe in stupid stereotypes, even if I point out their existence to them.
Here's a real-life example: about a year ago I invited an high-school friend of mine to spend a weekend in the city where I study. This guy has a weird fascination with post-Fascist mysticism (as a cultural ideal, not a political model), and since the city is pretty hardcore left-wing - there are always Communist and anti-globalisation activists around, and the most extremist ones are pretty unpleasant people - I told him that he'd better not wear his Julius Evola t-shirts while in town, or risk some serious harrassment. I knew he and his pals are OK guys who wouldn't even dream of giving trouble to a stoner, a Muslim or a Communist (despite disagreeing pretty strongly with their ways of life), and he knew I knew it, so the thought that I might be sharing that prejudice against him never even crossed his mind.

Now what if someone your friend didn't know, or knew only loosely told him the same thing, in public, and this public chastisement for crimes for which your friend is innocent was sparked by a few words had between a post-fascist mystic and a communist?

Now

A)The person is a stranger
B)The misguided warning is public
C)The stranger chose to chastise your mystic friend but(this is important) NOT the communist

What impression do you think that would have on your friend and those who witness the scene? Do you think that those people will think less or more of the community your friend represents, because a stranger felt the need to warn him to behave, based soley on one association he has?



Magdi Allam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdi_Allam). Despite having grown to dislike the man because of some stances he has taken in the last year or so, I recognise that in his role as a steadfast voice for moderate Muslims in Italy he has done a lot to improve the public image of Islamic citizens in the country.
He may not have done it out of a sense of obligation towards other Muslims, but after reading most of his stuff, my guess is that he definitely did it out of pride - because he actively wanted to dispel the stereotype.

I think IBA might disagree on a fine point here; I even think it's fine that he made that decision because of a desire to dispell bad publicity about his faith.

What would be inappropriate is a Christian preaching to a group of Muslims that they should follow his example.


As a side note, I do apologize for putting words in your mouth. My experience at the SCG forums was rather frustrating, and I misunderstood your intentions.



Also, Machinus' advice is pretty sound. Dave Gearheart told me the same thing a while back, and I probably should have listened to him at the time.


PR - Didn't you know? Taking pot shots at people you banned for arguing with you is the new "classy".

[MattH]

If you would mind giving examples on when a respected forums member said "get out of our format" to a new player
Point of order: before we go any further, note that I said that "get out" was the message someone receives, and not the actual wording used.


None of us are doing that, and none of us are cheering them on. Besides, asking the entire source to do that is much more analogous to asking the acquaintances of a wifebeater to not beat their wives, and to donate to anti-domestic violence causes.
No. The analogy is that the entire Source is being asked, when they see wifebeating going on, to step in and stop it (although since it's just words, and stopping those is rather difficult for a non-moderator, to just not tolerate hostility and derisive language).

But, you wanted some examples of Legacy's infamous hostility. I no longer have the time for this tonight, but I'll take a look around and see what I can find.


You mean like having your article questioned in a rational, polite, and well-detailed argument, and responding with bannings, ignoring the argument to call people trolls?
I have already explained why you are wrong about this. Evading a ban (which you were given for, yes, flaming and trolling) is itself a bannable offense. No matter how well-formulated your arguments were, you still deserved to be (re-)banned on that basis. Note how you weren't banned until BB was told you were ban evading. (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=768510#768510) Get down off your cross, we could use the wood.

(snappy yet unproductive comeback deleted at Zilla's request)


- He's not part of the community he's talking down to. ...Those who have no stake in or attachment to the culture in question don't get to criticize it.
Fine, except that there ARE people who are part of the community who tell you this, in relative privacy (i.e. on Legacy forums), and you don't listen then either. In fact, you don't listen SO HARD that you keep getting banned. That inconvienent fact really makes it hard for me to believe that you care one whit about criticisms of this format, and makes it look like you'll just take any excuse to stir up trouble.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

No. The analogy is that the entire Source is being asked, when they see wifebeating going on, to step in and stop it (although since it's just words, and stopping those is rather difficult for a non-moderator, to just not tolerate hostility and derisive language).

Which is offensive. Any group being singled out in public and told to stop wife-beating is essentially being told that they allow wife-beating.


But, you wanted some examples of Legacy's infamous hostility. I no longer have the time for this tonight, but I'll take a look around and see what I can find.

I could set aside time and find examples of hostility and snarkiness on a My Little Pony Forum. Welcome to the internet.


I have already explained why you are wrong about this. Evading a ban (which you were given for, yes, flaming and trolling) is itself a bannable offense. No matter how well-formulated your arguments were, you still deserved to be (re-)banned on that basis. Note how you weren't banned until BB was told you were ban evading. (http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=768510#768510) Get down off your cross, we could use the wood.

And yet, as Ben Bleiweiss has to answer to the same time stream as everyone else, the fact that he became insulting and rude, telling me to "go away", long before he learned who I was hardly seems irrelevant.


Fine, except that there ARE people who are part of the community who tell you this, in relative privacy (i.e. on Legacy forums), and you don't listen then either. In fact, you don't listen SO HARD that you keep getting banned. That inconvienent fact really makes it hard for me to believe that you care one whit about criticisms of this format, and makes it look like you'll just take any excuse to stir up trouble.

The accusations against my behavior are an attempt to derail this thread. It is sufficient here to say that they are completely irrelevant ad hominem tu quoque fallacies. I will briefly point out that,

"You were banned for being a troll. Regardless of whether or not you are now acting like a troll, it was therefore justified to re-ban you. *three sentence interval* And look, you're such a troll that they keep re-banning you!"

Is not the rock-solid argument that you may believe it to be.

[Slay]

Point of order: before we go any further, note that I said that "get out" was the message someone receives, and not the actual wording used.

I'm not responsible for people finding meanings that aren't there in my words. I find in your post undertones of racism, I think it's only fair that I ask you to be careful not to be offensive to black people at the GP.


No. The analogy is that the entire Source is being asked, when they see wifebeating going on, to step in and stop it (although since it's just words, and stopping those is rather difficult for a non-moderator, to just not tolerate hostility and derisive language).

What IBA said.


But, you wanted some examples of Legacy's infamous hostility. I no longer have the time for this tonight, but I'll take a look around and see what I can find.

Yes, please do, considering your argument is completely worthless without those examples.

Also:


In fact, you don't listen SO HARD that you keep getting banned.

Evading a ban (which you were given for, yes, flaming and trolling) is itself a bannable offense.

This doesn't make any fucking sense. Is he banned for reregistering or for trolling? Which statement on his character are you trying to make?
-Slay

[IndyTerminator]

The quality on Eternal forums is lightyears ahead of that of the Standard/Extended/Block forums, fwiw.

What I meant was that a lot of people on SCG and TMD don't even come to The Source and contribute because they think we are all "assholes" here. Those sentiments don't help the community pull together under one banner like you see with TMD. All of the public information in Vintage pretty much goes through there. Although I agree that Eternal forums are of a much higher quality than the other formats.

[TeenieBopper]

What I meant was that a lot of people on SCG and TMD don't even come to The Source and contribute because they think we are all "assholes" here.

/shrug. We're still better than they are.

[IndyTerminator]

I agree, we are the only site that focuses purely on Legacy. Although, TMD has some good Legacy forums I don't think they are as good as ours (no offense to the members over there).

[Nightmare]

Don't ever agree with Teeniebopper. He's being an asshole on purpose.

[Atwa]

What I meant was that a lot of people on SCG and TMD don't even come to The Source and contribute because they think we are all "assholes" here.

So what would be the solution?

Adjust our forum rules, ban some of the forums best writers who are right most of the time, but tend to formulate their idea's in a harsh way sometimes and simply become the SCG/TMD forums with the only difference our name?

No!

The Source has been a community of it's own since the beginning. I've already stated this is the Thunder Bluff thread a year ago: The Source is private property, and everyone is welcome to join; as long as you accept the rules and policies which count here. Don't expect us to change the way we are, just so you feel more welcome.

If people think we are assholes, let them. Should I prove to every prejudiced guy I am not an asshole? If I really needed to care what everyone thinks of me, I'd kill myself from worrying. I am not an asshole, and you know that when you meet me and talk to me. If you are too lazy or too prejudiced to try, why should I care about your opinion?

We (the source) should not change so people would like us more. The source is still growing, and I've seen no comments on these pages we are being rude for no reason. People won't be made fun of unless they deserve it. Truely offensive people get warnings and bans. If people don't like us, why do we even want them to join?

[Di]

The Source is private property, and everyone is welcome to join; as long as you accept the rules and policies which count here. Don't expect us to change the way we are, just so you feel more welcome.


The way this is stated implies that all those loudmouth people who constantly act out are the majority here, and speak on behalf of this website. Please don't get that confused with the actual representatives of the website, the mods and admins. Considering the behavior of a great deal of posters here, you damn sure better learn to change the way you are, not for some new posters, but for yourself and for The Source. Realize that despite the fact that people who come off as trolls and loudmouths and whatever don't speak on behalf of this website, but unfortunately are interrpreted as such by outsiders and thus they make the judgment that those people are. And because of this, The Source has developed a bad reputation. It doesn't even have to necessarily be outside of these forums for that to happen either. Shit, I'm going to admit the N&D is a haven for trolling and illegitimate posting. For some reason, many of you have some sort of reason to completely bash and undermine people in the harshest of ways in a New and Developmental forum because their deck isn't all that great, or needs a lot of work. How ironic that is, but it's like said posters are being judged like they were posting in the Goddamn LMF.

[Bardo]

Yes, please do, considering your argument is completely worthless without those examples.

As someone who loves Legacy and has lukewarm (at best) feelings about The Source, I'd say it's the overall tone and vibe of the place. If anyone cared enough, I'm sure they could find the kinds of immature and arrogant cock-flapping that MattH describes, but that would be besides the point.

Speaking personally, I actually like all of the mods and admins on this site*, but that doesn't change the fact that spending much time here is kind of painful. Sure, I can "go away," but that doesn't seem very satisfying either.

Part of the phenomenon probably comes from the fact that a lot of folks here know each and it's easy to say vulgar and mean-spirited things when you're friends with someone--because you're not being serious, not completely, anyhow. But people on the "outside" have a hard time picking up on all of these subtle social things (see below). Without realizing it, that tone though kind of pervades The Source, and newcomers have a hard time knowing when people are actively being an asshole for the selfish joy of being a prick and when it's just a bunch of guys fucking around with one another.

The consequence, however, is that a lot of people have a perception, correct or otherwise, that The Source is populated with an army of self-righteous, immature and arrogant jerks. If you spend enough time here, you kind of find out the truth. There are some real assholes here (like there are everywhere). There are also a lot of people who are very cool, intelligent and awesome. Then there are some harder cases, who seem like they're pricks, but really aren't.

I don't have any solution or anything (other than for the mods to adopt a stricter anti-flaming policy), but I thought I'd share.

* Except for GodzillA, that guy is a raging fucking douche bag.**

** See what I mean--this place just brings out the worst in me. ;)

[Nightmare]

Bardo has basically hit the nail on the head. As the site was founded by a group of people who knew each other personally, there is a definate undercurrent of good-natured flaming that resides within the "name" people on the site. This is perfectly fine, as it's generally harmless, but that naturally spreads outward to people not in the "clique," and in doing so, goes from joke to serious. People not in the know equate them as the same, and thus a reputation for assholery is born.

Another issue is, as The Source was (for all intents and purposes) the first Legacy forum, most of the prominant members of the Legacy Community are considered representatives of the site - whether the assumption is warranted or not. The fact that people like IBA, GRAH, etc. were or are active members on this site, while banned on other sites, is often used as rationale for the unfounded claims of this site's arrogance. I can't tell you how often I've dispelled claims on other forums of Johhny2Post's association with The Source. For some reason, there are a lot of people out there who think they speak for this site. Here's a general hint: If your name isn't Brown or Red, you don't. As far as the rest of the Staff and I are concerned, there are 8 people you should be thinking of when considering the site's representatives. Anyone past that is on their own.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

The way this is stated implies that all those loudmouth people who constantly act out are the majority here, and speak on behalf of this website. Please don't get that confused with the actual representatives of the website, the mods and admins. Considering the behavior of a great deal of posters here, you damn sure better learn to change the way you are, not for some new posters, but for yourself and for The Source. Realize that despite the fact that people who come off as trolls and loudmouths and whatever don't speak on behalf of this website, but unfortunately are interrpreted as such by outsiders and thus they make the judgment that those people are. And because of this, The Source has developed a bad reputation. It doesn't even have to necessarily be outside of these forums for that to happen either. Shit, I'm going to admit the N&D is a haven for trolling and illegitimate posting. For some reason, many of you have some sort of reason to completely bash and undermine people in the harshest of ways in a New and Developmental forum because their deck isn't all that great, or needs a lot of work. How ironic that is, but it's like said posters are being judged like they were posting in the Goddamn LMF.

But see, the people you're describing are not people who are part of the "Legacy Community".

Johny Cage, Grah, bstrict, are not people who represent the Legacy Community. They're random posters.

If someone wants to assume that they're the envoys of the Source, you have to wonder WHY?

It seems likely that people are just looking for a way to confirm their assumption that Legacy players are jerks. So unless we kill off every last Legacy-playing jerk, we're not going to eliminate ways for them to vindicate themselves.


Without realizing it, that tone though kind of pervades The Source, and newcomers have a hard time knowing when people are actively being an asshole for the selfish joy of being a prick and when it's just a bunch of guys fucking around with one another. The consequence, however, is that a lot of people have a perception, correct or otherwise, that The Source is populated with an army of self-righteous, immature and arrogant jerks.

I'm not sure why there are people who wouldn't have that perception about Magic players in general. Most Magic players, regardless of format preference, fall either into the category of scrubby and terrible, or arrogant jerks.

Perhaps The Source isn't for everyone. But I'd rather have intelligent, critical discussion that uses logic and references results than to let people traipse around as if all opinions are equal. And there really aren't too many other useful places to discuss Legacy. SCG is rampant with trolling, MTGS has some good threads, but definitively tends towards a more casual bent, TMD has a handful of actually active threads and Mods who take an active part in quashing threads if they don't like the discussed deck.

So, if you want to learn about the format, you can either go to the best place and deal with criticism, or try your luck elsewhere. I think most people actually prefer dealing with criticism, judging from the activity you usually see on the Source, compared to other Legacy forums.

[Bardo]

As far as the rest of the Staff and I are concerned, there are 8 people you should be thinking of when considering the site's representatives. Anyone past that is on their own.

This is actually a debate we're having in the Mod Lounge at TMD--when posting on other sites, to what extent can Adepts and the sort of "flagship" posters from one site cause damage to the reputation of that site. While you may think that only the mods and admins of site define the quality and character of that site, that is really not how it happens in the real world. If it did, the Source would not even been having this discussion.

[Nightmare]

I agree Dan, but the inevitable question becomes: What can we do about it?

A related question is, how can one look at IBA and Spat and associate them with this site, while looking at Machinus and you, and associate them with TMD? You have the same level of involvment on this site, how is it that one speaks more for this site than another?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The fact that people like IBA, GRAH, etc. were or are active members on this site, while banned on other sites, is often used as rationale for the unfounded claims of this site's arrogance.

You know, MTGSal is like a giant effing sandbox, and I still almost got voted Legacy poster over the year over there (with less than fifty posts in said year, no less). I'm just saying, the only people who actually seem to take my Hulk Hogan impersonations seriously seem to be the self-congratulating and self-serious theorists on TMD and Starcity who never seem to actually be able to top 8 at a real Legacy tournament but hate listening to explanations of why their theories are wrong and their pet decks don't actually beat Goblins.

Hell, I got banned from SCG simply for saying that the phrase "Just a hasted Savannah Lions" was inherently retarded, back when I had to laboriously explain (again and again) why Tin Street Hooligan was a good card. I'm just saying,


On topic, let me share one of my life philosophies with all of you in the hope that it will improve your lives.

And god said, "Do not read the SCG forums. Ever."

It works great.

As much as I've had my disagreements with Machinus, I have to respect the guy as a theorist, because this is a fucking beautiful strategy.

I'm going to advocate the same theory I did before I doffed the Mask. Fuck preconceived notions. Just ignore them. Pandering to people is transparent and doesn't make any real friends. If people want intelligent, honest conversation, they're quite welcome here. We could probably please a few extra people by banning anyone who pointed out why deck/argument X sucks, but at what price popularity? We're not profited if we gain the world and sell our integrity.

[Atwa]

Di and Mr.Nightmare

Maybe I was misunderstood when I made my last post, but I was in no way claiming to be a representative of The Source, since I was in no way (intending to) claim I am. However, reading negative posts about how things are done here reminds me of the time we had the Tunderbluff thread in the metagameforums, and that some people simply couldn't understand the mods went along with the joke.

I was just speaking my mind when I made the last post, where I spoke my feelings as if I were part of the source (like every member is) and how I look at this problem. My feelings are we shouldn't change we way we are, simply because some people from outside think we should. If anything other that that can be interpatated, please feel free to edit/delete my post, since it surely wasn't intended and must come from translating my personal feelings into english (something which is even hard for me in Dutch)

Of course I know I (or any other 'blue' member) has anything to say about it when it comes to forumpolicy. I've been a member for almost 2 year now, reading it since the B/R seperation, and for some reason I feel 'home' on these boards, a feeling I didn't have while visiting TMD and any other magicforum.

Now I didn't ever realise any negative feelings towards these boards, and I've always recommended the site to any guy starting to get interested in Legacy. Maybe it is time to change, I don't know. All I say is: do not change only because some guys on other websites tell you to.

EDIT:

We're not profited if we gain the world and sell our integrity.

That's what I meant.

[Mad Zur]

If the rude and the xenophobic were usually ignored or roundly denounced, Elgin(s) would have a point. But they are not, and when one of the major messages communicated to format outsiders is, "Stay out of our* format," Ben's advice to actively denounce the assholes of the format is reasonable and legitimate.
What do you usually do when you encounter these rude and xenophobic posters?

[Nightmare]

Di and Mr.Nightmare

Maybe I was misunderstood when I made my last post, but I was in no way claiming to be a representative of The Source, since I was in no way (intending to) claim I am. However, reading negative posts about how things are done here reminds me of the time we had the Tunderbluff thread in the metagameforums, and that some people simply couldn't understand the mods went along with the joke.

I was just speaking my mind when I made the last post, where I spoke my feelings as if I were part of the source (like every member is) and how I look at this problem. My feelings are we shouldn't change we way we are, simply because some people from outside think we should. If anything other that that can be interpatated, please feel free to edit/delete my post, since it surely wasn't intended and must come from translating my personal feelings into english (something which is even hard for me in Dutch)

Of course I know I (or any other 'blue' member) has anything to say about it when it comes to forumpolicy. I've been a member for almost 2 year now, reading it since the B/R seperation, and for some reason I feel 'home' on these boards, a feeling I didn't have while visiting TMD and any other magicforum.

Now I didn't ever realise any negative feelings towards these boards, and I've always recommended the site to any guy starting to get interested in Legacy. Maybe it is time to change, I don't know. All I say is: do not change only because some guys on other websites tell you to.Don't misunderstand us, either. We aren't saying you don't have the right to feel like a significant part of what makes this site what it is. We're only saying that what you do on other sites reflects on the site, and that it really shouldn't. Unfortunately, that isn't the way the internet works. If you all keep that in mind, the reputation of the site as a whole would probably be a bit better. We have less control over that impression than we would like. That's all.

[Atwa]

Good thing I only read, and don't post on any other magic site anymore (except our own teamboards).

But I can see where your frustration comes from. Since this is one of the few boards IBA is still (allowed to) posting, I can understand a lot of people think all the people on The Source, almost must be the same. Same goes for every well known member, but IBA is too good of an example to not name him.

Even if I agree with most of IBA's points (regarding magic, political we are galaxies apart), I do agree he does goes ( sometimes too) far when trying to prove himself right. However in the argument with Ben, I think he didn't go too far regarding his points. Too bad he got banned before the argument was finished, I am not sure however the argument would have never ended, since both IBA and Ben weren't conceding a bit to the other.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

Honestly, I have no idea where anyone got the idea that The Source was a den of assholes anyways. The second I started coming here, all I saw were a bunch of people who knew what they were talking about and weren't afraid to tell someone that their deck is utter trash. When you come here, you get the advice you need, and if you decide to cry about how you feel you weren't treated fairly, its likely because you're a bad player whose unwilling to improve their deck.

Oh, and I'm voting for IBA as the most awesome Legacy figurehead ever.

[Citrus-God]

Good thing I only read, and don't post on any other magic site anymore (except our own teamboards).

Cuz he's cool like that.... go, go overseas connection.


But I can see where your frustration comes from. Since this is one of the few boards IBA is still (allowed to) posting, I can understand a lot of people think all the people on The Source, almost must be the same. Same goes for every well known member, but IBA is too good of an example to not name him.

I like IBA as a player. He always has good reasoning when he makes a post... if not that, very witty sarcasm. Besides that, he's probably the member of these boards with the most character.


Even if I agree with most of IBA's points (regarding magic, political we are galaxies apart), I do agree he does goes ( sometimes too) far when trying to prove himself right. However in the argument with Ben, I think he didn't go too far regarding his points. Too bad he got banned before the argument was finished, I am not sure however the argument would have never ended, since both IBA and Ben weren't conceding a bit to the other.

It's true. Listen to Atwa everyone...

[frogboy]

We could just have Nightmare keep an eye on Salvation, SCG, and TMD, and whenever someone goes around being a dick he could just come out and be all "this man does not represent us."

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

We could just have Nightmare keep an eye on Salvation, SCG, and TMD, and whenever someone goes around being a dick he could just come out and be all "this man does not represent us."

What the fuck? This post wasn't about how great I am at all. Stop derailing the thread.

[URABAHN]

I could set aside time and find examples of hostility and snarkiness on a My Little Pony Forum. Welcome to the internet.

Holy shit! I know exactly what you mean. This happened to me the other day!

I type, "How much?" He types...
"Pinkie Pie and Sparkleworks?"
I say, "You guessed it, Blue's Clues."
And he says, "Fuck you."
And I say, "No, fuck you."
And he says, "No, fuck you."
I'm like, "No, fuck you."
Then he's like, "No, fuck you."

What NERVE! The guy comes into my world and tells me to fuck myself!

[Nightmare]

We could just have Nightmare keep an eye on Salvation, SCG, and TMD, and whenever someone goes around being a dick he could just come out and be all "this man does not represent us."
Aside from me not actually looking at SCG ever, how is this different than now?

[hi-val]

I'm reminded of a quote by Sir Winston Churchill: "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." It seems that this can be applied to forums as well; if you are going to correct someone for being wrong or debate, it costs nothing to be a gentleman about it. Something to think about.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

I'm reminded of a quote by Sir Winston Churchill: "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." It seems that this can be applied to forums as well; if you are going to correct someone for being wrong or debate, it costs nothing to be a gentleman about it. Something to think about.

In the age of the internet, I'm very skeptical how much it actually benefits, especially given that most who need correcting are pretty far from gentlemanly.

[frogboy]

I would actually be really amused if some joker in the Air Force painted "FUCK YOU" in bright neon on the bombs they were dropping on the caves in Afghanistan.

[Peter_Rotten]

I would actually be really amused if some joker in the Air Force painted "FUCK YOU" in bright neon on the bombs they were dropping on the caves in Afghanistan.


I'm reminded of a quote by Sir Winston Churchill: "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." It seems that this can be applied to forums as well; if you are going to correct someone for being wrong or debate, it costs nothing to be a gentleman about it. Something to think about.

What if they painted, "Pardon me. I regret that I must now blow off your limbs"?

Although I don't disagree, being polite doesn't always send a clear message in all instances.

[hi-val]

I would actually be really amused if some joker in the Air Force painted "FUCK YOU" in bright neon on the bombs they were dropping on the caves in Afghanistan.

http://www.internationalterrorist.com/vomit/hijack.jpg

http://www.radioislam.org/lebanon/jewish-gifs/Jewish-kids-express-love-for-children-of-Lebanon_files/israeli-girls-bombs3.jpg

This is actually relatively common procedure.

In any case, being polite on the internet is great practice for being polite in real life, yay!

[mikekelley]

I love that second picture, bahah.

[MattH]

And yet, as Ben Bleiweiss has to answer to the same time stream as everyone else, the fact that he became insulting and rude, telling me to "go away", long before he learned who I was hardly seems irrelevant.
Being rude to you is not banning you. Asking you to go away is not banning you. Trying to conflate the two in order to make yourself into some kind of free speech martyr is dishonest.


"You were banned for being a troll. Regardless of whether or not you are now acting like a troll, it was therefore justified to re-ban you. *three sentence interval* And look, you're such a troll that they keep re-banning you!"
Is not the rock-solid argument that you may believe it to be.
The mistake is yours, in assuming that those two statements constitute one extended argument. They do not. There are two conversations going on at once; one about your recent re-banning, and one about whether you are serious about furthering the cause of the format and forum.

Furthermore, when I say you "keep getting banned" I am referring to being banned twice from TMD and twice from SCG before this week's kerfluffle (once each for IBA and once WBG).


I'm not responsible for people finding meanings that aren't there in my words.
I will refer you to Peter Rotten:

From his latest post:

Originally Posted by Ben Bleiweiss
If people want to take offense to my article, that's their fault, not mine.
That is just low.
That is just wrong.
I hope that he does not apply that logic to more important issues outside of magical card games. If you're offended, it's your fault.



This doesn't make any fucking sense. Is he banned for reregistering or for trolling?
This is not complicated. The answer is both. Jack was banned once, many months ago, for trolling and/or flaming, and then AGAIN recently for evading the original ban. I do not know any simpler way to explain this.


Part of the phenomenon probably comes from the fact that a lot of folks here know each and it's easy to say vulgar and mean-spirited things when you're friends with someone--because you're not being serious, not completely, anyhow. But people on the "outside" have a hard time picking up on all of these subtle social things (see below). Without realizing it, that tone though kind of pervades The Source, and newcomers have a hard time knowing when people are actively being an asshole for the selfish joy of being a prick and when it's just a bunch of guys fucking around with one another.
Curse you, I was going to say this but you beat me to it.


What do you usually do when you encounter these rude and xenophobic posters?
On TMD I either edit in a moderating message, or tell Bardo to do it if I don't feel I can do so in a dispassionate manner.

On this site? Nothing, as I am not a moderator here, and furthermore I have no particular interest in whether this site's negative stereotypes are dispelled or not. Occasionally I report a post, when it is obviously a problem and if I am likely to have been the first to see it, but not often, partly because as Bardo said, the tone around here is much more "locker room"-esque.

Speaking of tone, after doing as much digging around as I honestly care to, which was not much, I did not find that many examples of nastiness. I found these two stinkers:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=131745&postcount=92
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=127189&postcount=3

but nothing as bad as I remember. I am forced to conclude that either my memory is faulty or the site has cleaned up its act of late and I hadn't noticed. I vaguely recall some post by a mod or admin - about a year ago? - trying to address the negative stereotypes about MTS, which I'm sure didn't come out of nowhere. Assuming I'm not just hallucinating that initiative, it was apparantly effective. Kudos!

Have a field day with that one; you know you want to.

[frogboy]

I am forced to conclude that either my memory is faulty or the site has cleaned up its act of late and I hadn't noticed.

Probably a little of both. I think things have been blown out of proportion, but we did ban a few people a while back and generally got slightly more aggressive and less lenient when moderating.


I vaguely recall some post by a mod or admin - about a year ago? - trying to address the negative stereotypes about MTS, which I'm sure didn't come out of nowhere.

I don't remember anything specifically, but this might've involved the IBA/De Rosa fiasco where a similar firestorm blew up?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Being rude to you is not banning you. Asking you to go away is not banning you. Trying to conflate the two in order to make yourself into some kind of free speech martyr is dishonest.

If you're going constantly resort to some sort of appeal to ridicule and claim that I'm making a martyr of myself, we're not going to get anywhere, and you will, of course, be the greatest of hypocrites in your behavior.

In truth, to say that I'm making a martyr of myself is so far removed from the truth as to be laughable. I've pointed out how little I care about being banned from SCG, and how little it would prick my conscience to make yet another account should I actually desire such, multiple times.

I only point out that Bleiweiss chose to hide behind his defense of who I was to retroactively defend his initial behavior, which was unacceptably rude.


The mistake is yours, in assuming that those two statements constitute one extended argument. They do not. There are two conversations going on at once; one about your recent re-banning, and one about whether you are serious about furthering the cause of the format and forum.

Furthermore, when I say you "keep getting banned" I am referring to being banned twice from TMD and twice from SCG before this week's kerfluffle (once each for IBA and once WBG).

You probably want to keep your argument straight.

I was banned from TMD for "trolling" once.

I was banned from SCG for "trolling" once.

If you want to make an argument that either of these were justified and the two unrelated and based upon objective measurements, then go ahead, but I doubt you'd make much more headway than in your demonstrations of Source assholery.


On this site? Nothing, as I am not a moderator here, and furthermore I have no particular interest in whether this site's negative stereotypes are dispelled or not. Occasionally I report a post, when it is obviously a problem and if I am likely to have been the first to see it, but not often, partly because as Bardo said, the tone around here is much more "locker room"-esque.

Speaking of tone, after doing as much digging around as I honestly care to, which was not much, I did not find that many examples of nastiness. I found these two stinkers:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=131745&postcount=92
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=127189&postcount=3

but nothing as bad as I remember.

I can find ruder.


Great job! Maybe the attendance will be so low, by your desire to have nobody show up for, what is in your eyes a bad format, that there will never be another Legacy Grand Prix ever again. That'd be real great, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't. Man, you are just a really negative human being. Life gives you lemons, and you sit there whining about the lemons and lashing out at everyone around you. The more intelligent Legacy players I'm sure are adding sugar and making Lemonade, chief.

So, I guess I can add arrogance to your list of negative traits, since you are the be-all-end-all of knowledge about the power level of Hulk Flash.

Go away. You are being actively harmful to the rest of the Legacy community at this point.

- Ben

If you're going to devote yourself to pretending people are/should always be polite to each other, you'd probably be better off not casually throwing your comrades "under a bus":


MaskedMan actually reinforced every conceivable negative stereotype possible in that thread.... If people like Talen Lee and Steve Menendian are smashing into you for reinforcing a stereotype, and are carrying the day in doing so, you're doing something absolutely hideously wrong.

This one is especially relevant as it prompted a mod warning, which as we all know, of course means that Anusien is just a trolling dickwad:


This actually goes to all of you. Your self-righteous, arrogant, assholishness over there (that I have to clean up) only makes Legacy look worse. It's amazing Ben and Pete agreed to hold the D4D in spite of people like you. Honestly, either go there to post constructively or just stay away.

I like hypothetical examples.


No, that is wrong. What you are being told is that you can't gain respect by participating in the community, building decks, and being rude, xenophobic, and too often presuming bad faith on the part of people who disagree with you. This is true.

You are also being told that you CAN gain respect by participating in the community, building decks, and being polite and welcoming. This is also true, if presumptuous.

The point here is that acting like a dick spoils and ruins whatever other contributions you have made.

And not just for those who act in such a negative manner, but also for anyone who tacitly or explicitly lends support to those few who DO display such negative traits.

If some guy acts like a dick, and you congratulate him for defending your format against those oppressive interlopers, you lose your presumption of innocence.


I've had my own problems with BB's modding in the past but there's no way that what you posted could be considered intelligent discussion. Comparing Legacy players to blacks/Muslims because somebody on the Internet wrote a mean article is utterly and completely stupid. Grow up please.


So, the legacy community, who, by and large, I suspect are not against the idea of 'be nice to new people', were in this thread, represented by a trio of obnoxious and arrogant people, who have demonstrated a lack of respect for rules, propriety, and the writer in question, all while claiming moral superiority in their general bad behaviour.


The truth is, it's very easy for a group of people to convince themselves by expounding on a stereotype that they are in the moral right, and that therefore any argument against them is pointless, arrogant trolling and flames, and that nothing they can do might be wrong. Without such a preconceived notion, it would be impossible to walk into this conversation and see the above as anything other than signs of the most blatant hypocrisy. It does you or anyone else little good to criticize people for being elitist, arrogant, and rude and then demonstrate those qualities to the utmost of your ability.

[Mad Zur]

On this site? Nothing, as I am not a moderator here, and furthermore I have no particular interest in whether this site's negative stereotypes are dispelled or not.
Do you think that negative perceptions of this site contribute to negative perceptions of Legacy players in general? I'm not sure what could cause these negative stereotypes other than online Legacy communities, because I've never heard of anyone attending a Legacy tournament and concluding that Legacy players are rude. If that's true, don't rude posters harm not only this site's image, but the format's image as well?

[URABAHN]

The problem with Jack being a martyr is that people would have to see him as a sympathetic figure :D. Diablos hit it right on the nose that, when it comes to debate or arguing, Jack is like a dog with a bone--he just won't let go. Because of that, I can understand why he causes (caused?) such displeasure on TMD and SCG.


On TMD I either edit in a moderating message, or tell Bardo to do it if I don't feel I can do so in a dispassionate manner.

On this site? Nothing, as I am not a moderator here, and furthermore I have no particular interest in whether this site's negative stereotypes are dispelled or not. Occasionally I report a post, when it is obviously a problem and if I am likely to have been the first to see it, but not often, partly because as Bardo said, the tone around here is much more "locker room"-esque.

Are there other Legacy Forums that aren't as "locker room"-esque? Is that really so awful and the source (no pun intended) of yours and Ben's tension?


Speaking of tone, after doing as much digging around as I honestly care to, which was not much, I did not find that many examples of nastiness. I found these two stinkers:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=131745&postcount=92
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=127189&postcount=3

but nothing as bad as I remember. I am forced to conclude that either my memory is faulty or the site has cleaned up its act of late and I hadn't noticed. I vaguely recall some post by a mod or admin - about a year ago? - trying to address the negative stereotypes about MTS, which I'm sure didn't come out of nowhere. Assuming I'm not just hallucinating that initiative, it was apparantly effective. Kudos!

Have a field day with that one; you know you want to.

You speak as if you come from posh, elitist, high society Legacy Forum. Are you trying to come off that way? Seriously, "...cleaned up it's act of late?" Man, the Legacy Community just can't win. A while back, our shibboleth deck names were confusing people to the point that it was very difficult to understand the format! Now our potty mouths and Pirates of the Caribbean attitudes are doing the same! WHY CAN'T WE GET NEW PEOPLE TO PLAY WITH US?

[Slay]

Speaking of tone, after doing as much digging around as I honestly care to, which was not much, I did not find that many examples of nastiness. I found these two stinkers:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=131745&postcount=92
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=127189&postcount=3

but nothing as bad as I remember. I am forced to conclude that either my memory is faulty or the site has cleaned up its act of late and I hadn't noticed. I vaguely recall some post by a mod or admin - about a year ago? - trying to address the negative stereotypes about MTS, which I'm sure didn't come out of nowhere. Assuming I'm not just hallucinating that initiative, it was apparantly effective. Kudos!

Have a field day with that one; you know you want to.

There are two times, I feel, that the Source has lived up to its stereotype. The first was when the format split, and everyone was bitching. T1.5 was one of the most insular formats in Magic at the time, way more than Vintage had been for the past several years before that, so there was a lot of bitching a bout how "my precious format was taken away". Of course, this is the first time people en masse paid attention to the forum and so there was a pretty nasty first impression left in people's mouths, and I guess it all spread from there.

The second time was when Smennen went on the Trix-is-better-than-your-format bend about two(?) years ago. We flamed him because it was a bad deck, and because he writes in a rather infuriating style. Now, regardless of the amount of flaming that actually happened, this appears through the lens of someone uninformed(like the entirety of the SCG community) as us getting pissed off and defending "our" format against a famous player who broke the format legitimately. This would only cement the reputation we have for being unintellegent assholes.

The 'flaming' stereotype is built above a much more fundamental stereotype, which is that we are irrational, xenophobic people that aren't good deckbuilders or players. You can see that in the MaskedMan argument, if you have the preconcieved idea that IBA(because he's from the source) doesn't know what he's talking about and using fancy words to cover it, his arguments become a lot easier to shut down.
-Slay

[Nihil Credo]

I hate to reply to a post from a page and a couple of days ago, but sorry, there was an exam involved, and I hate even more to look like someone who flees from a debate.


Now what if someone your friend didn't know, or knew only loosely told him the same thing, in public, and this public chastisement for crimes for which your friend is innocent was sparked by a few words had between a post-fascist mystic and a communist?

Now

A)The person is a stranger
B)The misguided warning is public
C)The stranger chose to chastise your mystic friend but(this is important) NOT the communist

What impression do you think that would have on your friend and those who witness the scene? Do you think that those people will think less or more of the community your friend represents, because a stranger felt the need to warn him to behave, based soley on one association he has?

The stranger chastised him? That's not the subject of this debate. Ben didn't say "Hey, Legacy players, you're doing something wrong, stop that". Likewise, I didn't tell my friend that he was doing anything wrong. And if a stranger told him "You know, you'll get bothered if you wear that T-shirt. Might want to consider taking it off." I'm pretty sure he wouldn't get offended.

Actually, those are nearly the same words a guy told me on a train, when I was wearing a heavy metal T-shirt, and a Christian youth group was about to get on board; I remember I thanked the stranger for the advice (and then keeping the T-shirt on anyway: screw close-minded freaks).


What would be inappropriate is a Christian preaching to a group of Muslims that they should follow his example.Again, that would depend on the way he preaches. I believe there is a very significant difference between "You should do that" and "It would be good if you did that". And Ben said "How can you make Grand Prix: Columbus the best experience possible for others? [Do stuff]".

[TheDarkshineKnight]

Speaking of tone, after doing as much digging around as I honestly care to, which was not much, I did not find that many examples of nastiness. I found these two stinkers:

http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=131745&postcount=92
http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=127189&postcount=3

but nothing as bad as I remember. I am forced to conclude that either my memory is faulty or the site has cleaned up its act of late and I hadn't noticed. I vaguely recall some post by a mod or admin - about a year ago? - trying to address the negative stereotypes about MTS, which I'm sure didn't come out of nowhere. Assuming I'm not just hallucinating that initiative, it was apparantly effective. Kudos!

Have a field day with that one; you know you want to.

Wait, you're serious about those two posts actually being considered nastiness? Those are about the least offensive things I've ever read. I could understand your opinion if The Source was a fucking McDonald's Playplace, but it isn't and hopefully never will be.

[Cabal_chan]

There is one problem with Mr. Bleiweiss's article, aside from what's caused the current argument (It would be interesting to see if he takes his own advice and "patrols" the GP for renegade players, or will he be at SCG corner the entire time).

IMO, he contradicts himself in regards to Hulk Flash and the GP.

"To add to the perceived attitude problems, we have the 900-Pound gorilla in the room — the one known as Hulk Flash. Many have adopted a “the sky is falling” attitude towards this combo deck, and let me say — this also does not help engender people to your format. Protean Hulk plus Flash equals quite a good deck..."

"The pre-Future Sight version of Hulk Flash is considerably weaker than the post-Future Sight version of the deck. The lack of Pacts at Grand Prix: Columbus definitely holds the power level of Hulk Flash in check."

"Yes, Hulk Flash will warp the metagame at Columbus..."

"Don't engender an attitude that Hulk Flash is going to ruin the Grand Prix."

He says that Hulk Flash isn't a concern, and that you shouldn't tell people about how strong it is for fear of discouraging them from attending the GP. However, he also says that it will warp the metagame.

Say a new Legacy player is reading his article, for whatever reason. It sends a contradictory message. First: don't worry about it. Second: It will warp the metagame. Mr. Bleiweiss is pushing, though not as much as other players, a message about Hulk Flash that he tells everyone else not to.

Anyone who so much as tries to give the new player advice on how to handle the Hulk Flash MU is now engendering the attitude that the combo deck will ruin the Grand Prix, despite the fact that Mr. Bleiweiss himself acknowledges that Hulk Flash will warp the metagame, which is grounds for a ruined GP.

Or am I just reading into something that isn't there?

[Atwa]

Or am I just reading into something that isn't there?

I have a feeling you aren't.

[Slay]

BB simply thinks that the relative power level of Hulk Flash to the format is the same as the relative power level of Goblins to the pre-HF format. Something we've debunked here many times but I don't think he reads these forums.
-Slay

[Cait_Sith]

BB simply thinks that the relative power level of Hulk Flash to the format is the same as the relative power level of Goblins to the pre-HF format. Something we've debunked here many times but I don't think he reads these forums.
-Slay

Ben is right, actually. With the recent Banning of Enginnered Plague, Swords to Plowshares, Cruel Edict, Chainer's Edict, Infest, Wrath of God, Damnation, Mutilate, Vendetta, Lightning Rift, Humility, Tivadar's Crusade, Tivadar of Thorn, Worship, Lightning Bolt, Silver Knight, Soltari Priest, and Plated Sliver, Goblins is an incredibly powerful deck.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Ben is right, actually. With the recent Banning of Enginnered Plague, Swords to Plowshares, Cruel Edict, Chainer's Edict, Infest, Wrath of God, Damnation, Mutilate, Vendetta, Lightning Rift, Humility, Tivadar's Crusade, Tivadar of Thorn, Worship, Lightning Bolt, Silver Knight, Soltari Priest, and Plated Sliver, Goblins is an incredibly powerful deck.

Don't forget Propaganda, Ghostly Prison and Elephant Grass.

And Crystalline Sliver.

[Machinus]

There are a few complicated issues being brought up in this thread, but I'd like to address just two:

First, the supposed conflict that exists between two forums is a bunch of nonsense. I'm in this format to build good decks and play at my best in tournaments. There are a few forums on the internet where, if I look hard enough, I can find other people who are interested in the same things. Along the way I have to wade through shit tons of immaturity, ignorance, conceit, and general stupidity, and it doesn't make a different on what forum I'm doing it. Each place has it's own brand of head-up-the-ass relativistic selfish bullshit, and they're all awful and disgusting. If you can't get over yourselves and focus on magic then get out of the fucking way.

Second, no one person or group of people "represents" the entire format to non-Legacy players. There are certainly people inside the format who mean something to other Legacy players, but it is incorrect to say that someone can "mis-represent" the format, because Legacy players are the same as other magic players. If someone is stupid enough to generalize others' behaviour, then they will suffer for their own ignorance. We can try to market the format, but that is a voluntary act, and not doing so has no bearing on the players who don't, or the overall community. Don't forget that WotC is ultimately responsible for everything in this format.

[Finn]

Why does this crap always happen over weekends? I had way too much reading to do to see who was even pissed at who. Assholes.


The 'flaming' stereotype is built above a much more fundamental stereotype, which is that we are irrational, xenophobic people that aren't good deckbuilders or players. You can see that in the MaskedMan argument, if you have the preconcieved idea that IBA(because he's from the source) doesn't know what he's talking about and using fancy words to cover it, his arguments become a lot easier to shut down.
Well I am certain that Jack knows what he is talking about and I still think he is using fancy words to prove one unavoidable fact:

The more he talks about this topic, the more he is the person BB was talking about in the first place.

Ben kinda has you caught, Jack. IMO you should just let it be, not that I think you are capable of that.


You probably want to keep your argument straight.

I was banned from TMD for "trolling" once.

I was banned from SCG for "trolling" once.

If you want to make an argument that either of these were justified and the two unrelated and based upon objective measurements, then go ahead, but I doubt you'd make much more headway than in your demonstrations of Source assholery.Unless your ruse remains a secret you can't get banned for trolling more than once. An acquaintence of mine is in prison right now for parole violation, but that doesn't change the fact that he initially had a pile of Kalashnikovs under his bed.

See how easily the discussion can be sidetracked by a skilled speaker such as an Elgin? MattH's point wasn't even in question, just some really minor detail. That is the kind of discussion that really turns people off. I bet Ben was relieved to find the true identity of the masked man. From personal experience, I can say that it gets tiring to argue with this level of granulation. And the fact that Jack has a group of coattail chasing cheerleaders who think that it looks cool to always be right no matter what the cost makes it seem like the whole place is ganging up on newcomers who are not yet familiar with it.

But that's where we are. I personally think that Ben's comments on Legacy snobbery were meant well, but probably caused more potential attendees to be turned off than the number of folks who will heed his call.

BTW, Jack and Matt E, your ability is truly awesome to behold. Most people are nowhere near capable of arguing about much of anything with you guys. And that would be peachy if there was no element of entertainment associated with these forums. Most folks want to improve themselves. They just don't want to scrape their self esteem off the floor to do it.

[Cait_Sith]

Don't forget Propaganda, Ghostly Prison and Elephant Grass.

And Crystalline Sliver.

And Blue Elemental Blast and Pyroblast and Pyroclasm.

[frogboy]

There are a few complicated issues being brought up in this thread, but I'd like to address just two:

First, the supposed conflict that exists between two forums is a bunch of nonsense. I'm in this format to build good decks and play at my best in tournaments. There are a few forums on the internet where, if I look hard enough, I can find other people who are interested in the same things. Along the way I have to wade through shit tons of immaturity, ignorance, conceit, and general stupidity, and it doesn't make a different on what forum I'm doing it. Each place has it's own brand of head-up-the-ass relativistic selfish bullshit, and they're all awful and disgusting. If you can't get over yourselves and focus on magic then get out of the fucking way.

Second, no one person or group of people "represents" the entire format to non-Legacy players. There are certainly people inside the format who mean something to other Legacy players, but it is incorrect to say that someone can "mis-represent" the format, because Legacy players are the same as other magic players. If someone is stupid enough to generalize others' behaviour, then they will suffer for their own ignorance. We can try to market the format, but that is a voluntary act, and not doing so has no bearing on the players who don't, or the overall community. Don't forget that WotC is ultimately responsible for everything in this format.

I can get behind pretty much all of this.

[Galroth]

Regardless of these so called jerks giving the legacy community and The Source in particular a bad rep. (To who? Beats me.) The Source will continue to be my forum of choice because, IMHO, the level of expertise I have encountered here is heads above the rest; props. I'm astonished people could care about some internet persona enough to go anywhere else but the best :P. Nonetheless, a good flame-war is always appreciated for its humor.

[Slay]

Well I am certain that Jack knows what he is talking about and I still think he is using fancy words to prove one unavoidable fact:

The more he talks about this topic, the more he is the person BB was talking about in the first place.

This was, imo, the funniest thing about that thread, was that IBA is about the closest thing you can get to the stereotype of 'asshole' legacy player and is the most famous for it, and he shows up in the thread immediately and lays down a thorough point-by-point decimation of all of BB's points.


Pyroblast

Well fuck, how would we ever beat Goblins without Pyroblast?
-Slay

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

BTW, Jack and Matt E, your ability is truly awesome to behold. Most people are nowhere near capable of arguing about much of anything with you guys. And that would be peachy if there was no element of entertainment associated with these forums. Most folks want to improve themselves. They just don't want to scrape their self esteem off the floor to do it.

Society is built upon and maintained by two things; reward and punishment. Without a reward for good behavior and a punishment for bad behavior, the system falls apart.

If somebody makes outrageous match-up percentages, for instance, Finn, and everyone just takes them at face value, there's no incentive for someone to post realistic match-up percentages. It just makes your deck look worse to admit your bad match-ups and not exaggerate your good matches.

Those that want to discuss their decks realistically typically find good advice, and as a result, a great many decks have developed on this site.

The system clearly works pretty well; the average level of a post on the Source is miles above the average on any competing site barring the Mana Drain, which has little to no activity. Even those decks that may not be optimal are at least discussed intelligently and openly.

So I don't think you argument holds; The Source is the most popular site for Legacy because people know that

A)Most of its regular posters know the format, and
B)They'll receive honest and mostly constructive criticism

So I'd like to see these posts you imply I write where I go out of my way to flame scrubs for shitzngiggles.

[Goblin Snowman]

For what it's worth, The Source has never had any more flaming than any other forum of almost every topic. The closest it's come has been when someone went against Forum rules, ignored all advice, or was trolling. This holds true of every format. There are going to be people who feel they are better than you, usually because they have done better that you in tournements, until you yourself prove you're not an idiot.

[Finn]

Society is built upon and maintained by two things; reward and punishment. Without a reward for good behavior and a punishment for bad behavior, the system falls apart...blahblahblah...So I'd like to see these posts you imply I write where I go out of my way to flame scrubs for shitzngiggles.Are you a politician in training? WTF are you even talking about? Do me a favor, next time you want to try to steer me into an argument with you, just cut to the chase without all the useless drivel.

I'm sure that me combing through your words would make you happy, but I will certainly not be looking to your harangues to find something to argue about with you. I imply nothing. That's all in your conscience, I suppose. But I want to thank you for promptly supporting my case about derailing a central point with useless sidetracking.


If somebody makes outrageous match-up percentages, for instance, Finn...I like the fact that you address me in this part. This I will bite. Did you notice that when your brother built BGW and called Threshold a "bye", for example, there was nobody calling into issue the veracity of this statement? Know why? It is. Most aggro and control completely folds to it. I simply kept an account of that same information with numbers - for me. For my own reference. If you don't believe them, that isn't my concern, but coming from someone who claims to value impyrical data, you really should have tested at some point before running your mouth about it all over again.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Are you a politician in training? WTF are you even talking about? Do me a favor, next time you want to try to steer me into an argument with you, just cut to the chase without all the useless drivel.

I'm not the one who started naming names. So speaking of politicking, stop shifting blame.

And here's another rule: Don't say my name unless you're talking to me. If you're going to try to call me out, then follow up your passive-aggressive bullshit with some points. Otherwise, don't play innocent.


I'm sure that me combing through your words would make you happy, but I will certainly not be looking to your harangues to find something to argue about with you. I imply nothing. That's all in your conscience, I suppose. But I want to thank you for promptly supporting my case about derailing a central point with useless sidetracking.

Explaining to you why societies, including the Source, work is useless sidetracking?

No, you don't have a central point to derail. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, and I doubt you are either. What is it you're trying to say, Finn?


I like the fact that you address me in this part. This I will bite. Did you notice that when your brother built BGW and called Threshold a "bye", for example, there was nobody calling into issue the veracity of this statement? Know why? It is. Most aggro and control completely folds to it. I simply kept an account of that same information with numbers - for me. For my own reference. If you don't believe them, that isn't my concern, but coming from someone who claims to value impyrical data, you really should have tested at some point before running your mouth about it all over again.

Playing 3 games and claiming 67% against a deck is NOT empirical data. No one is going to complain when a deck claims a few very good match-ups. When your weakest match-up is 47% and your average is above 60, expect intense skepticism. This is just common-sense.

[Peter_Rotten]

What are we arguing about? I feel like the debating is taking a turn to bickering.

We're done here.