Why was this a feature article?I mean, when a designer or whatever talks about events, they have a different perspective to the rest of us that can be interesting to hear. But just hearing some random person's Prerelease story, even if it's a Wizards employee, seems utterly pointless. Especially when her direct involvement in the on-goings is not something that would provide her with any insight that a normal player would lack.Oh well. At least this article gives me hope that being young, pretty and female is enough to get to write articles for Wizards. I'll be taking the first flight from Ireland to Seattle.
Noooo! Casual articles on my DailyMTG frontpage? Why has Maro forsaken us?!
Speculating on how or why someone got any particular job is pretty inappropriate. Doubly so on a public forum, where you have the luxury of remaining semi-anonymous yourself. Don't be petty.
Why was this a feature article?
Anyway, back to the article: this prerelease report actually illustrates why I stayed away from Simic as my chosen guild. Compared to the other guilds, it just didn't have the bombs to compete. The "guild pack" certainly skews the Prerelease Sealed format toward a more bomb-centric focus, as you're guaranteed to get at least one on-guild rare in your pool. With a couple of exceptions, Simic's rares just aren't very good in Limited: Biovisionary and Unexpected Results are extraordinarily weak when compared to the likes of Merciless Eviction and Clan Defiance. Plus, Simic in Sealed is a lot more vulnerable to getting weak pools, what with the lack of removal and the need for a balanced evolve curve to keep up with the aggression in Boros and the fat in Gruul. (At my prerelease, the decks at the top were mostly Orzhov and Dimir. Boros and Gruul preyed on the weaker pools, but against a well-built Orzhov or Dimir deck, most of them just couldn't close the deal.)That said, I'm looking forward to playing with Simic in Draft, since drafting gives you more control over your curve. I can see a well-drafted Simic deck being able to regularly curve out with Cloudfin Raptor-Shambleshark-Crocanura, which seems like an almost unbeatable opening.
Noooo! Casual articles on my DailyMTG frontpage? Why has Maro forsaken us?!I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.Adam Styborski does nothing but casual articles, yet they're still good because he actually provides some insight, deck ideas, etc. My point was that merely posting the opinions of someone who might as well be some random person on the street doesn't add anything. If I wanted a person in the street's opinion on the Prerelease, I'd go ask one.
Glad i'm not the only one dorky enough to have a Ravnican guild symbol tat, though I was also aware of very very few people running Gruul at the prerelease. I was the only one at my store, but we ran out of Simic and Dimir in about 5 minutes. Thats Blue for ya XD
Lastly, I will step out of the comfort zone and at least say having a female perspective of the game and its components is a major advantage. It would be amazing (in so many ways) if the day came where the gender of the nerd culture is about half-and-half, and Wizards was about half-and-half.
76125763 wrote:Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
Agreed. I clicked on the "discuss" link out of morbid curiosity to see how long it would take for the personal attacks to start flying. I'm disappointed to see that the very first post kicked it off.
I will say I did still expect a little more insight into Brand, a branch of Wizards that I really don't know about the going-ons. I definitely want to hear specifics of what exactly they crafted, or what in particular Tifa worked on or was proud of.
Adam Styborski writes awful stuff. His very writing is shouty, and he presumes casual consists of throwing a bunch of cards, most of which are (mythic) rare, together and calling it a deck, then making up a format with obvious flaws and pretending it's awesome. Once every month or something he writes an actually okay article which piques my interest, but that's about it.
The main reason that I see for this to have been published is because she's female.
192884403 wrote:surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
Adam Styborski writes awful stuff. His very writing is shouty, and he presumes casual consists of throwing a bunch of cards, most of which are (mythic) rare, together and calling it a deck, then making up a format with obvious flaws and pretending it's awesome. Once every month or something he writes an actually okay article which piques my interest, but that's about it.This is so true. The only times I've found Adam Styborski's articles worth reading are when he had a new card to preview.
What I do feel is that, if these publications are to have females write their articles, etc., they should do so based on the same merits that are applied to male writers - that is, they should be chosen based on their abilities, not just their gender.
What is Burning-Tree Emissary doing in a deck with 4 red sources? Even an 18th land would've been much better.
What is Burning-Tree Emissary doing in a deck with 4 red sources? Even an 18th land would've been much better.It can fix mana when you're short of a red source, it triggers a couple of evolve creatures and it's not an awful beatstick. I don't know what's in her sideboard, but with her curve, I would prefer the Emissary over an 18th land.
The main reason that I see for this to have been published is because she's female.Yeah, definitely. You would have never seen an article like this - that basically said nothing - by a male employee. When I saw it on the front page I clicked interested, because I'm curious to see where the LPS thing goes, and was greatly disappointed and confused to read what was basically a "prerealase experience" post, of which I've read far better ones on this very forum.
I'd also like to point out that Jacob van Lunen, in his time as Building on a Budget writer, wrote articles about illegal decks and decks so expensive they defied any notion of budget. And while he got a lot of flak for it, he never had to defend himself against "the only reason he is a columnist is because he's [something totally irrelevant]."
As I have a Creative Writing degree, I'm pretty excited for the opportunity to write my first article for you and I hope it's not the last.
If someone had told me three years ago that I would be a contributing force for bringing women into the Magic: The Gathering scene, I would have been pretty surprised. When people have dubbed me as a trailblazer, squeal-able, or starstruck-worthy, I've been shocked, but honored. I'm not certain those titles are even close to true or ever will be, and I'm fine with that, but I'm pleased with the sentiment behind them.
I started playing in Friday Night Magic (FNM) tournaments and Draft tournaments within my first few weeks of playing and it wasn't easy going into a scene where everyone knew every detail of the rules. I felt viewed as "bad" when the reality was that I was inexperienced. I couldn't help but feel that this view was worsened because I was a woman. Yes, I jumped in head first, even playing in a Grand Prix and PTQs within my first six months, and maybe that isn't the best pathing for a beginner. However, the view that I was bad at the game is what pushed me so hard. Every loss felt like I was letting female gamers down, and I couldn't have that. I couldn't let the people who thought I was bad be right. I had to get good at this game!
One of the main purposes for the group is to teach people how to play Magic, especially people who might not feel as comfortable jumping into the regular tournament scene to learn. I wanted to take out as many potential obstacles as possible. This includes taking away the highly competitive vibe that most tournaments have and making it more casual and inviting.
If tournaments associate with Rocky theme music, I wanted my events to be catchy pop music fun. From my perspective, we are on today's hits charts!
There were a couple women who didn't want to learn from or play with their boyfriends and asked for my aid, as well as women who knew how to play but hadn't had many opportunities to play with other women. I invited people over to teach, learn, and play Magic. It started with four of us in my living room, but it wasn't long before the idea of doing something like this at a larger level was brought up. How cool would it be to invite women from all over Seattle to learn and play together at a tournament?
Since when was your education in any way relevant to anything?
and having more estrogen than testosterone in my system doesn't make me better or worse at playing MtG or anything else.
I don't need any sort of help in making people respect me as just another player - that comes all by itself if I'm just somewhat competent. Same for everyone else.
I won't deny that drafting is difficult, but it's definitely better than forcing a T2 tournament where people aren't allowed to bring good decks - it's hard to enforce that sort of thing anyhow. Drafts are, in my opinion, the better option here. Making FNMs, "but without all that scary competition nonsense"... Is not. Players should only be coddled for so long - eventually you have to feed them to the sharks, let them get bitten, and then see if it makes them want to get better. That's how everyone does it - women are no different. The problem here is that Meyen seems to prefer defanging the sharks and then having the new players poke at them with a stick for a bit. Which is hardly how you learn to fight sharks. You need to buy those steel teeth first so you can bite back.
Just... No. No comments. Sorry.
Generally, I've found that on the rare occasion when a female entered any of the playgroups I was in, she would be welcomed and taught like anyone else. Maybe that's because my playgroups largely consisted of social rejects and the competitive players were the nicest people there,
can't handle losing over and over, which is the best way to learn how to be good at a game.
I'm not one of those. I don't need to be coddled. I don't want to be treated like some damsel in distress when playing card games, and as a result, this "initiative" and this sentiment, bothers me.
She's just happy the investment she made into her education didn't go to waste. She spent a lot of time and money on it, and now she gets to write an article. Payoff!
It most certainly does but that's an entire discussion on its own.
Great, you didn't need any help, awesome. But why should others be denied help? Or is Magic a game that only those who are 'competent' are allowed to play?
What kind of Sharkfighter Academy throws their students in the tank day 1? Baby steps. They'll go to the real FNM eventually, but they first grow into it in a comfortable environment.
Also you didn't quote anything about not being allowed to bring good decks?
Then why quote it?
I would be inclined to say 'yes that's why'. If it went as smooth for everyone as it does in your experiences, there would be no need for such initiatives and they'd not exist.
But being good at a game is not everyone's motivation. See the Timmy-Johnny-Spike model. This has nothing do with gender or snowflakes, some players simply have no interest to play in this manner.
But why be so selfish about it? You are negatively affected by this initiative, but if were to go away, others would be negatively affected. Why does it bother you that much?
But it's not relevant to the article. Not even tangentially. It's basically a way of saying that she's qualified to do this, for whatever reason she feels that is necessary - but she could just as easily just show that in the article itself. It comes off as needless self-indulgence to me, but different strokes, I guess.
Maybe it's because English isn't my native language, but to me it sounds like this:
"As I have a Creative Writing degree, I'm pretty excited for the opportunity to write my first article for you and I hope it's not the last."The 'as' ties it to the 'pretty exited' part. The 'Creative Writing' isn't used as any kind of qualification for the 'writing article' part, but as an explanation for her exitement.Needless self-indulgence? Possibly. You can certainly argue it wasn't needed to mention at all. It's just that it's not used in the way you interpret it.
No - if the article said that it was for new players who needed the help, that would be fine. But the implication that I take offense to is that this goes for all females - which obviously isn't true.
Indeed. While you are right in that the article is written somewhat exclusive (what if I'm a boy struggling to get into the game?) what parts of the article do you see as an implication that it goes for all women?
...Which doesn't go against anything I said, and does in fact look more like an agreement. My point was to keep casual games casual and teach them there, without giving a false sense of superiority by putting people into a tournament-that-isn't-really-a-tournament. Just say that it's casual and keep it at that. Let the FNMs and various events be what we're working towards.
What is wrong with a step between casual and FNM? This isn't about a false sense of superiority. This is about a real sense of comfortability. Again, less Spike, more Timmy.
I think that was implied by forcing everyone to play casually.
A casual mindset and casual decks are 2 completely different things.
Because I felt like it deserved to be highlighted? Which you do with quotes?
Then why not explain why you felt like it deserved to be highlighted?
Where did I say that it went smoothly? I just said that the competitive players were the nicest people there. As in, the "casual" players were not very nice, and borrowing a competitive deck from someone was the easiest way to learn how to get better. Whenever I tried to sit down at the Two-Headed Giant or FFA tables, I instantly got a cold shoulder and was always targeted by everyone in FFA, even if there were bigger threats. To say that it went smoothly is not quite accurate.
Ah. Now imagine places where neither the competitive or the casual groups are extending that helping hand. Thus a need for such an initiative.This doesn't even have to be a critique towards those groups. If there's no chemistry, there's no chemistry.
Everyone wants to get better. Not everyone has winning as their primary goal - I don't either, for that matter - but learning by losing is not something I ever had problems with. Just shrug it off, realise what you did wrong and apply what you learned to your next game. Everyone does this at some level, even if they're unaware of it - I don't like the school model of giving kids a gold star every time they do something, regardless of whether they did well or not. Besides, it seems like Meyen's intention was to have these people capable of playing in a regular FNM, so I'd definitely say that losing is the best way to get there.
Some timmies honestly do not have any drive to get better. (A small minority but they do exist)What works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone. Don't assume that because you never had problems with something it isn't a problem.Magic is not a school though. It's a hobby, a pasttime. People are allowed to play the way they're comfortable with. And again, baby steps. They'll get to the losing part. Just no absolute need to start there.
Because I don't think it's a positive influence for anyone. What I'd like to see is for everyone to be treated equally. And no, that's not how it is now, but as I said, driving bigger wedges in doesn't help.
But different kinds of people have different needs. By not being allowed to treat differently, you can't serve those who are left out. If it's not gender, there are always other factors like age, experience, competitiveness, etc.