Community

Jan 23, 2010 -- 9:10AM, Destinatus wrote:

Jan 23, 2010 -- 8:57AM, Niche wrote:

Jan 23, 2010 -- 7:09AM, ong312 wrote:

Jan 22, 2010 -- 5:22PM, evilweevil666 wrote:

Seriously though, everyone just shut the hell up about carnage altar.  Ong has his own opinion and clearly, even though pretty much everyone on the forums has said they disagree, he's going to stick with it.  The debate is just ridiculous, so stop.

THANK YOU!

That's all I am saying... no one has to agree with me or like it... let me do what I do. As for arguments about "protecting" other users... I think that's bunk. Censoring someone because you don't agree with them helps no one. What if you become the minority? Should you then be censored?

This is the kind of thing you should learn about in school...

Censorship is kind of a stretch to throw around, and inflammatory.

What we're talking about is once you've been proven incorrect, even if you think you're right, and cannot produce solid logic to support yourself any further... then stop pushing that thing.

No one is trying to take away your right to speak.... although at times I have to admit if I had a button beside your name that'd let me I probably would have pushed it. A lot. 

That's the thing, he pretends to be on this crusade for freedom of speech but this is a MTG forum, lol. If you're going to say that something works then back it up with evidence. If you can't produce figures then play someone on MWS and let's see it work. The funny thing ong, is that you have demanded this same type of proof on multiple occasions but fail to provide the same courtesy for other people.

1. I don't protend to be on a crusade. I just hate that the same 3 people continue to plague me with there posts... When I don't have to deal with them, things go much smoother.

2. I don't use Work Station because of a couple reasons:
a. I think it's illegal (no, I don't believe in commercial file sharing either. If it's available to purchase it's stealing if you don't...)
b. I have not investigated it (mostly because of a), so wouldn't even know how to test on there

3. There are some things I ask for support on. However, right now I am blanking on some time where I have asked for something in the way of tounament results as a comparative situation. I do know that I don't count FNM results or Work Station games as proof. I have said as much. They are useful only to a point... There is a large and very important unknown about the quality of players you face.

4. I provide play guides for using a card (or try to). What someone does after that is up to them. If they don't like the strategy I don't force them to use it. I say what works for me... The fact that people both are dismissive and forceful with attempts to "correct" my theory when they have not tested it is laughable. It's like me trying to improve a receipe without even making it... It's presumptuous. Even when one of the Wizards.com columnist took a preconstructed deck through a 4-week process of tuning it into something he thought was competitive, he started with the deck without modifications and made notes/observations and conducted tons of actual research. If you don't want to try something, I won't force you. HOWEVER, I want the respect that you won't just call something bad because you don't believe it. You have done nothing to disprove or prove it. It's not good theory or good etiquet.

Jan 23, 2010 -- 5:26PM, Niche wrote:

Playtesting without a sufficient sample size is *NOT* proof. If you run 40 games of one deck vs. one matchup... it's not proof. If you run 40 matches you're getting closer. When you run 70 matches, and they all go to 3 games... then you've got a sample size we can use actual statistics to analyze. 

Instead, all anyone can do is provide solid theory and logic to support themselves and their concepts. Winning a PTQ is great, but that doesn't always mean a deck is viable in the meta at large. Some decks just slip through the cracks and then are easily quashed away and never resurface. Example: 5c elementals won a standard ptq, but was by and large a good block deck only. It never showed up again after its 15 minutes of fame.

So if your logic fails, telling us you've won 80 games in person doesn't really mean anything. Especially when you can just lie about numbers. You need irrefutable logic, explanations that don't have to do with narrow applications, and the ability to concede when you're wrong. Once you accept you are incorrect about some things people will stop telling you that over and over again, and you'll have a chance to talk again. And people will listen. It's kind of like the adage, 'It's hard to listen when your mouth is open.'

And the funny thing is, I simply intend this as an informational relay to you to be helpful... but I bet you're going to try to respond to it... when there's nothing to respond to. 

“It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

I agree with most of what you said. The part in bold is the most striking... as it reflects my problem very well. While I do admit when I am wrong (a character strength, I might add), it's the interpretation that creates issue:

Okay, is it wrong to say tiering decks is subjective? I say it's not wrong to make that statement... Then there is an uproar because it's so against the grain (though an entirely true statement... heck, it was even based on a sticky). I am listening to what's being said, looking at what is being presented... and yet no one listens to me (or even the sticky that was put there long before I revisited that position).

I read, I think, I reply in that order. However, when people come to disagreements it often becomes a battle of wills rather than an exchange of knowledge around here. THIS is a problem... I am not here because I think I am right all the time. I am here because I like a free-flowing exchange of ideas. I don't like people thinking it's okay to bully and force everyone to think the same. That's bad for the game as a whole. At the end of the day, as long as knowledge is shared, even if you don't always subscribe to it (like how I don't subscribe to the belief that Abyssal Persecutor is worth the current price point) you come away richer.

"Never take a 'no' from somebody who isn't in a position to give you a 'yes' in the first place."
-Oprah Winfrey

Jan 25, 2010 -- 10:02AM, JustTerrorIt wrote:

Jan 23, 2010 -- 10:27AM, ong312 wrote:

4.  It's like me trying to improve a receipe without even making it... It's presumptuous.

I see what you mean.
But conversely, if a recipe for cookies includes "dirt", I would change that ingredient to something else, like "flour", "sugar", or "brown sugar". Even before I make it. Some things are just too questionable.

There are ice cream receipes that use Rose Petals and people eat Snails, Cockroaches, and other "unusual" things around the world... So, while I totally would want to change "dirt" to um... anything else, I would more than likely either not make the receipe or go all out and try it with enthusiasm if I knew it had dirt in it... LOL