[Discussion] Who to Believe

[SouthAlly]

First off, I have seen discussions of this sort before on this forum, and it can get ugly. I don't mean to step on toes here. Please try to keep this civil, boys.

There is pretty much no input from the vast majority of the mod staff or even the adepts in any of the discussions about actual decks these days. So I don't know who I should be believing on the discussions I care about. (the naked chicks stuff is grand, don't get me wrong, but I could get that stuff anywhere if I wanted it) Right now, I really only follow what a few people have to say.

Bardo
Van Phanel
Finn
Tacosnape
Di
Pinder


With everyone else, I am just not sure. I guess there are lots of people who I should trust. But I don't know who those people are. And the guys who are labeled as trustworthy with a fancy color pretty much only post in a few threads if at all. And most of them are in mish mash or community anyway. And I don't know at all who really knows their business in any of the development forum at all. The purpose of the site just seems to not be working when there is so much chatter, and not a lot of useful info in that chatter. So I have some questions on this matter.

Can we get some new adepts who actually post in relevant threads?

Who really are the people shaping Legacy the most these days? I suppose tournament success is important, but who is responsible for designing the good decks. I want to know so I can ask for advice.

[rockout]

If you want someone to believe, read back a few pages in a thread and see who is posting good information about a deck and who others in the thread often turn to or quote for their information.

[Skeggi]

You shouldn't believe Rockout that's for sure. I wouldn't trust him. Just look at his sig, it's all wrong.

[quicksilver]

I find TheInfamousBearAssassin has the best advice. Just listen to him then do the opposite and you can't go wrong.

[emidln]

The list of people that I unquestionably listen to is pretty short. It currently has no names on it. The list of people I'll listen to when they provide solid reasoning for their choices is variable, growing and shrinking with each post that I read. Don't listen to someone just because they've made good posts in the past. Listen to someone because their logic on the current topic is sound.

That said, I'm crazy. Don't ever listen to me. I mean, I actively try to lose at least half of my life in every single game of magic I play.

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

It might be easier to compose a list of those to definitely NOT trust...

[Valtrix]

The list of people that I unquestionably listen to is pretty short. It currently has no names on it. The list of people I'll listen to when they provide solid reasoning for their choices is variable, growing and shrinking with each post that I read. Don't listen to someone just because they've made good posts in the past. Listen to someone because their logic on the current topic is sound.

Nothing could be more truthful. (That's right, I'm listening to you because of your solid reasoning.) By doing so you may start to get an idea about who has solid ideas about a deck, and who doesn't. However, just because somebody has a track record says nothing about what their post is going to contain, and people will often surprise you (in both good and bad ways).

Also, somebody who you trust could post about a deck your interested in, but if that's not what they've played and worked with, then they probably have less insight than those that have been working with a deck. We have people who know a lot about deck building and playing, but trying to develop an intimate understanding with all of them is an impossible task.

The responses in this post also amuse me.

[beastman]

You seem to have noticed the different colored names already, people in light blue have done enough for the legacy community or have been succesful enough that when they say something, It's usually worth listening to.
Personal advice, Never listen to a guy with king kong and megashark high fiving as his avatar, that guys an asshole.

[Aggro_zombies]

It really varies by thread, you know? Some people have more experience with certain decks (say, goobafish with Canadian Threshold) and are probably worth listening to when they talk about those decks. That doesn't stop them from making retarded posts in other deck threads, though.

Also, Finn? Really?

[Tosh]

Since when has Pinder been a believable source in anything but mish mash? :D

[mossivo1986]

People I believe:

Konsultant (For the most part)
Rockout (Because we are teammates and he listens to me)
Bardo (Because he's just that f'ing pimp)
Nightmare (Because he makes me laugh. He's a realist. I like realists)
Gustha (You have to have the funny italian in there.)
(Team Spod) Because their name is Spod.

[rockout]

You shouldn't believe Rockout that's for sure. I wouldn't trust him. Just look at his sig, it's all wrong.

Frown town.

I trust piceli89 in the merfolk thread, konsultant in the landstill thread, bryant cook in the TES and some others but my list is rather short. I don't even trust my own posts sometimes because I troll from time to time like most people.

[Aleksandr]

Eldariel + Kuma + scrummdogg in FS

Adan + DIF wrote very well in NQG thread, but I don't care of that deck for some time..

[Dan Turner]

Everything I post is a Lie.

Everything Everyone else post is the truth.

[beastman]

Everything I post is a Lie.

Everything Everyone else post is the truth.

What kinda mindfuck is that?

[Nightmare]

You could listen to me, if I ever posted in Magic threads.

[spirit of the wretch]

(Team Spod) Because their name is Spod.

Yay for that =)

I listen to everybody who reasons with me over some many beers. On this site that seriously limits the number of people.

[blueneverfails]

you shouldn't trust anyones words. theres a thing called testing, when I read in the forums, I will read everyones comments even if in the past they sounded like idiots, cuz sometimes they will stumble on to something. But that is also why there is mws, so that you can test out the ideas it doesnt take long to do this and then it doesnt matter who says it, if you like the idea urself then test it and try it, theres no harm in testing.

[beastman]

Testing on MWS is the worst idea ever. That is used strictly for killing time.

[lolosoon]

(mostly~)Trusted :
Di for Survival related deck
Emidln & Bryant Cook from Storm boards
GoobaFish for Canadian and Tempo-related Thresh
NiteWolf for TA & Eva Green
Klaus 'bout Landstill
...

I also do think each DTB has its 1-2 referent guys, and a bunch of good players giving (and sometimes taking) some advice.

As stated before, you must look at the logic behind the names, not (always) the names themselves. Then test, and make your own idea on the matter.

[DrJones]

The person that opens the thread about a deck usually has a pretty good idea of how it works, and probably is the one that has tested it more throughly. Just look at the first post and see how much work he put on it to see if you have to listen to him or not.

Hint: If it starts by saying: "I just threw this pile of cards and I hope it works, please help me make it better", don't ask him for advice.

[Piceli89]

I found lately some "less known " posters to provide good reasonings in what they write,and their list are usually very interesting. If you'd ask me a name, I'm thinking crz087 , and GreenOne. They always give structured proposals, and always give you several reasons for which it's better to pick up this rather than that.
However, as you'll be able to notice, most of the people above this post mentioned , for each singular thread, the guy who has pretty much invented/developed that archetype. Take the Goobafish or Di example.
I'm on this "way to trust" too,as i believe that a deck's creator always has a sort of "feeling the others don't have" that pushes him to make his creation perfect and to adjust/regulate for each single card. And always provides solid and logical reasonings behind each single choice, ofc (except Bryant Cook who sometimes come up with things like "let's try without IGG or with a single Adn" in TES, which makes me doubt about his sanity..joking guy, i love your deck, wish you could post more frequently :tongue: ).

@Rockout: thanks for the trust man, but I gave up merfolks in the last times, even if I'll never completely be done with that deck, i feel it. If i were to advice you a good poster in the 'Folks thread, my bet would go on PhoenixIgnition, no doubts about it. The point is that he too doesn't post anymore in it (and i can guess why).

Ah,dont' trust Klaus for any reason , he's a total asshole. But his list of SpeedStill is increedibly, astonishingly well-built and works really finely- darn , that german.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

The Dragon Stompy thread isn't useful anymore, but that's what happens when there's so little to discuss.

[Wargoos]

I listen to everybody who reasons with me over some many beers. On this site that seriously limits the number of people.


I'm mostly drunk when I post.

TT: Goobafish
LS: Fredmaster
Any Survival related: Di, and partially the beastman
Dreadstill: Rood
IP: Hollywood
Ichorid: Parcher
ITF: Deep6er and partially Ch@os
StormCombs: Cook and also for TES: Piceli

All the good people.

[JeroenC]

The only people I probably ever listen to without any doubt are people who either made a deck that's been refined over time, so pretty much the people mentioned, and emidln. I've learned to accept his advice on pretty much every deck, especially Storm Combo.
For anyone else, I'll be extremely sceptical, preferring to call them out on something that seems credible, than to accept something slightly doubtable.
Also, never believe me, I'm actually a really bad player, I just like being here. I don't think I've ever really said anything very intelligent where deck construction was involved.

[Ectoplasm]

Trust the people who post results, don't trust the people who make claims of something being 'the best' or their way being 'the best way' to do something.

Honestly, results go a long way.

[Finn]

Also, Finn? Really?Yeah, whodathunkit? Must've been the insightful articles, top deck designs from scratch, and successful pursuit of unpopular ideas that fooled her. Perhaps I should be spending my time taking swipes at other members instead.

[Volt]

Ignore him, Finn. If AZ were within reach, I'd give him a smack on the back of the head.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

You seem to have noticed the different colored names already, people in light blue have done enough for the legacy community or have been succesful enough that when they say something, It's usually worth listening to.

You tell funny jokes.

[frogboy]

Signal to noise is always a problem. When I read strat threads, they're usually gigantic, so I start with recent pages and look to see if anyone consistently makes articulate points, particularly where matchup analysis is concerned. I have certain preconcieved notions of ideas I think are garbage, so that's another filter. Similarly, people who post lists I think are elegant tend to move up.

(also, "I won a local random tournament" is usually pretty lol as an endorsement. Avoid that appeal to authority.)


And the guys who are labeled as trustworthy with a fancy color pretty much only post in a few threads if at all.

Note that part of the reason people like that are worth reading is because if they don't have anything useful to say they don't say anything.

[Pinder]

Since when has Pinder been a believable source in anything but mish mash? :D

God, I know right? That guy is such an ass.

[Zach Tartell]

I feel like we already had this talk like eight months ago.

I suggest we all go to the "bad behavior" thread and read Daemon's amazing accounts of Jack's ridiculousness.

[mujadaddy]

I feel like we already had this talk like eight months ago.

I suggest we all go to the "bad behavior" thread and read Daemon's amazing accounts of Jack's ridiculousness.
Bald guys are moody.

[sunshine]

Pretty simple rule of thumb: don't trust/distrust an idea solely because of it's source. Test the ideas that seem reasonable to you. You may be more inclined to test something because it came from someone you consider to be an authority but it's really up to you to settle on your final decklist. Generally I will follow threads for the sake of seeing what sort of things other people are thinking about a given deck - regardless of who is posting what. The signal to noise ratio would go way up if more people tested and staked less on the poster's reputation.

That being said, if you just don't have time to test yourself or can't for whatever reason (other than just being lazy) then I'd favor the opinions of those who do test or put up results.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

It's easy to figure out who to trust, read around. The posts that make sense typically come from the same people.

[Bardo]

Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,—“But these impulses may be from below, not from above.” I replied, “They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the devil’s child, I will live then from the devil.” No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution; the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right.

[Bardo]

I meant that people should trust themselves and be self-reliant on their own ideas; not too beholden to anyone else's ideas.

[Amon Amarth]

Build the decks. Play them. Make decisions based upon empirical data. That's your best bet.

Or just go with the most eloquent/loudest poster.

[DragoFireheart]

I meant that people should trust themselves and be self-reliant on their own ideas; not too beholden to anyone else's ideas.


Just because you resposted in laymans terms doesn't make anyone stupid.

I find the best way to try ideas is good ole fashion trial-n-error. Sure, it takes more work, but it'll give you the info you need.

[Volt]

I meant that people should trust themselves and be self-reliant on their own ideas; not too beholden to anyone else's ideas.

RWE was an interesting dude. I've never quite fully grasped transcendentialism (Everything is God, but God is nothing, because God transcends being, wha?), but I deeply appreciate the desire to eschew religious doctrine. Anyway, I'd put Ralph up there just a notch below Voltaire, Ben Franklin, and Sir Richard Francis Burton on my list of people I'd like to have dinner with. [/offtopic]

[Sims]

Don't listen to me. I played goblins without Lackeys. Because I could.

Posting in the dev forums is typically meant for people who follow the dev of many of the decks. To be blunt, most of the major decks in this format don't interest me, so I won't post in their threads. Not worth it to potentially add more noise and block out other potential good info. Or I spend too much time playing Type 2 and EDH lately to pay much attention to legacy since I miss half the locals due to work.

Read the stuff and gauge for yourself if it sounds stupid. If it sounds like it might be a solid suggestion, proxy it up and test, test, test. Take the changes to a tournament and test, test, test. Don't take someone's word for it becuase their name is teal, purple, or red. Just do yourself a favor and pull a CSI: follow the evidence, the data doesn't lie.

[Pinder]

Just do yourself a favor and pull a CSI: follow the evidence, the data doesn't lie.

Also, zoom in on things more than is possible and/or realistic.

[mossivo1986]

O no I wasn't named as a landstill genious :(

/throat

[Tosh]

Also, zoom in on things more than is possible and/or realistic.

Don't forget the montage, how else could they do 3 days of work in an hour?

[Maveric78f]

I remember the early merfolk thread, when I was the most involved in the deck with Finn. Then, Picelli showed up and he was proposing deck changes that I judged at this time (and probably still now) completely irrelevant. I bashed him several times, and I think he hated me. Meanwhile, he became an expert in merfolks and I stopped playing merfolk to play better creatures on their own (dark confidant, goyf, jotun grunt, phyrexian dreadnought) in the same shell (4*waste/port/stifle/vial/daze/FoW). Actually, if I remember well, Finn had the same reflex at that time (now there is wake thrasher and relic of progenitus, so that merfolks have better weapons). I'm quite sure Picelli is more merfolk expert than I am now, even if he quitted merfolks too now (but later).

\mylife

All this to say that I believe that deck experts are not necessarily the ones who started the thread, and that one should listen to deck experts.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Me.

[Aleksandr]

Sometimes when I think about Alix Hatfield, I touch myself.

True story.

[The_Red_Panda]

Me.

This.

[4eak]

Isn't the original post a little bit ironic? Why ask us who to read and follow? If you follow your own list, then you should only be listening to those posters in this thread. Otherwise, you seem to already have another set of criteria. Just follow through on that criteria.

Spend the man-hours to read, test, and think for yourself. Be willing to change your opinions if given good arguments, and when in doubt, go out and test it yourself.

Some people consistently make good points, but nobody is always correct. Approach every thought or idea as if it has a chance to be either right or wrong (even if those chances are greater or smaller depending on who said it or based upon your previous experience and thought). Be charitable to the speaker and honestly try to understand what they said (because, of course, opinions which differ from ours will look bogus at first glance, and if you don't know everything, then there are likely to be opinions which first appear bogus, but aren't).

Knowledge-seeking is hard work.





peace,
4eak

[TheCramp]

Self Reliance Quote

Pfft, fuck that guy. "God does not have to reveal the truth, the truth can be intuitively experienced by paying attention to our experiences? test myself? bullshit! Someone tell me how to play legacy and win all the time, now.

[DrJones]

Pfft, fuck that guy. "God does not have to reveal the truth, the truth can be intuitively experienced by paying attention to our experiences? test myself? bullshit! Someone tell me how to play legacy and win all the time, now.Play all the games against the goldfish. :tongue:

Disclaimer: you still have to play a deck that doesn't loses to itself.

[Watcher487]

Read the stuff and gauge for yourself if it sounds stupid. If it sounds like it might be a solid suggestion, proxy it up and test, test, test. Take the changes to a tournament and test, test, test. Don't take someone's word for it becuase their name is teal, purple, or red. Just do yourself a favor and pull a CSI: follow the evidence, the data doesn't lie.

Now while, yes, I do go out of my way to play strange and 'weird' decks this format can contain, it helps. Most people on these forums should be able to look at a simple suggestion for a deck that they have played and take 10 minutes to figure out that if it could or could not be helpful at all. It's as simple as that. When I used to post, it was based off of useful things the deck or expirences that had playing against said deck was for me.

But the thing that I have seen so much of for the past year is a one-liner about a card that the poster has not actually read before or is thier 'qwirky' card that they have to play in evey deck they have.

Basically, bringing this all back to where it should be. Do not trust anyone. Have trust in your abilities and your own personal feelings. And foremost Specialize in something, don't learn a 100 decks for no particular reason. Become good at what you have in front of you and what it relates to in other decks.

[The Wolf]

Although threads like this can cause some conflict, they area very good idea. Being a part of the Mana Drain for years and seeing it go from a great resource to a useless pile was painful. The staff there have been making a lot of effort, and have gotten it back on track, but it’s rebuilding from the ground up.
This site is still doing very well. There is a lot of discussion and new decks are paid attention to by good players. This is how a site stays alive, and how a format continues to evolve. When people stop participating in discussion and new decks get made fun of without testing is when you need to be worried.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You could trust all these assholes telling you to trust no one, or you could trust me telling you to to trust me. Only one of these is internally inconsistent.

[yankeedave]

You could trust all these assholes telling you to trust no one, or you could trust me telling you to to trust me. Only one of these is internally inconsistent.

I am always amused by J.M.F. Elgin, but rarely do I listen on matters outside of the Mighty Quinn.

That said, what a brave response. Well done for leaving the door open to critisism, sir.

Dave

[emidln]

You could trust all these assholes telling you to trust no one, or you could trust me telling you to to trust me. Only one of these is internally inconsistent.

J. M. F. Kant?

[Parcher]

The answer is David Gearhart.

Beacause he hates you.

All of you.

People who generically hate you usually can't be bothered to lie to you.

[Finn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastman
You seem to have noticed the different colored names already, people in light blue have done enough for the legacy community or have been succesful enough that when they say something, It's usually worth listening to.
--------
You tell funny jokes.Very next post:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Southally
And the guys who are labeled as trustworthy with a fancy color pretty much only post in a few threads if at all.
----------
Note that part of the reason people like that are worth reading is because if they don't have anything useful to say they don't say anything.

[Skeggi]

I've got a few people I hold in high regard, but I'm not going to name them because they'll get even more arrogant :wink:

[Volt]

Trust no one. Not even yourself. You could be lying or making shit up.

[Misplayer]

I think this thread is mostly worthwhile. All the "trust yourself/do your own research" stuff should be a given, no?

I think it does vary by deck/thread. For the most part, I put more weight in the advice/ideas/suggestions of people that I respect. My respect is usually earned by:

1. Making intelligent, respectful posts with sound reasoning and explanations
2. Putting up results
3. Agreeing with what I already think (this is extremely counterproductive when trying to discuss deck improvements)

These criteria may very well filter out some people that it would be worthwhile for me to listen to, but I can't bring myself to do it.

That said, there is an entirely separate group of people who's posts I will always read because I know that they'll be interesting/funny, even though not always informational.

[Bardo]

After being on these boards for a few years, I've refined the ability to tell when someone is talking out of their ass. Without going into specifics, this varies from thread to thread and from poster to poster. But there are very, very people who I think: "I usually trust this guy when it comes to Legacy."

Hence, my douche-y way of saying that trusting your own experience and judgment is usually superior to believing the opinion of someone else. Of course you need to be honest with yourself and know how to analyze your own faulty logic and fondness for pet cards and pet decks. That may be asking a lot--but I dream big.