MTG Salvation

Quote from Blinking Spirit

I trust the irony here is deliberate?

Why indeed, my dear.

Quote from Jay13x

This essentially sounds like they were Lebanese, which is essentially what this is describing. It's not really surprising, honestly.

TBH, what was the Lebanese of the times then?

My favorite part is the 'borderline lactose intolerant'. I'm pretty sure this is going to be the description of one of my children: Dark Skin, Blue Eyes, Borderline Lactose Intolerant.

Honestly, though, this guy just sounds like someone native to the Mediterranean region. Those kinds of features are still common all around there.

Uh, perhaps so.


Something about the thread title is pissing me off right now, but it could be me right now.

Quote from Tinfoil Hat

can't someone just invent a time machine already so we can know definitively what they looked like and how they lived?

Yeah, definitely.

Quote from Child of Belial

I am all for it, but the strength of Christianity here in Oklahoma (slowly dwindling) is pretty over-encumbering. I believe this statue should be allowed..

Thanks for your input. The George Carlin thing was great. Good to test on my wide-screen set up.

However, what is 'over-encumbering'? I know what 'encumber' is, but what is this?

Quote from Bitsy

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/put-a-satanic-monument-at-ok-capitol
Its supposed to stand for religious freedom and will be next to a statue of the 10 Commandments. Naturally many Christians are upset about it but I'm not sure there's anything they can do to block it from being built. The statue will depict Baphomet flanked by two children and be 7 feet tall. You will also be able to sit in the statues lap, not only for the amazing selfies but also for contemplation and religious purposes.

Lol, I do not know what to say about this but carry on, Oklahomans.

FYI, it's gist. Jist is a nonstandard alternative, but the English language would appreciate it jist (jist, of course, doubles as a nonstandard form of just)fine if you kept it to not so colorful and alternative.

Quote from IcecreamMan80

smh...

two things will happen

The 10 C's statue will be removed, and the Satanist statue denied...

or the Satanist statue goes in, followed by a Pastafarian Noodle Deity statue, a Moobies Golden Calf, a bronze life size Yoda...(because you know, can't play favorites)

I hope that reflects you and not the people of Oklahoma.

Quote from Amadi

Eye colour is, in general, dictated by multiple genes rather than just one. The inheritance pattern of blue eyes is very close to that of a recessive gene, however. It's caused by lack of melanin in the iris/ocular fluid.

People with blue eyes are believed to have a singular common ancestor. The trait is incredibly common in Estonia and Denmark. IIRC, 99% of people in Estonia have blue eyes, making it the highest concentration of blue-eyed people.

Yes, we can read Wikipedia too. However, perhaps we might also notice that it fails to acknowledge a proper source for all of its questionable claims and that it fails to resolve the inconsistency re. no melanin v. some melanin: "There is no blue pigmentation either in the iris or in the ocular fluid. Dissection reveals that the iris pigment epithelium is brownish black due to the presence of melanin. Unlike brown eyes, blue eyes have low concentrations of melanin in the stroma of the iris, which lies in front of the dark epithelium."

Do you have an original opinion or thought with regard to the news report or this conclusion put forth in this recent study, though?

Speaking of which, if someone could post a link to the article by Lalueza-Fox, that would be great.
The doi for the research report is 10.1038/nature12960.

Hey, a collaborator of a collaborator and a sort-of collaborator is an author on that. Would you look at that!

Quote from Captain_Morgan

Raises a point, though, about the persistence of blue eyes in Spanish blood, though, was more of my thinking.

Wow. I had to re-read this sentence thrice. Fewer thoughs or a different construction would better it.

Quote from Captain_Morgan

http://news.yahoo.com/what-humans-may-have-looked-like-7-000-years-ago-153941503.html

Dark skin. Blue eyes. Beard. Thin and borderline lactose-intolerant.

Neat.

Cool.

Fascinating, but also what of it?

At the same time, race and all this stuff is important and has profound implications, but it is also not very important.

Quote from parinoid

Yeah.

Huh.

Oh, happy Australia Day, lol!

It's a bit explicit, so I PM'd you the link, rather than post it here.

Right, thanks. Much appreciated!

It's hilarious but also scathing and sad.

Quote from Post Affinity

Well, as I said, I had to rant, I had to be facetious too because, well, it's not such an important matter to really be that serious about it.

So, to you, it's all academic and it's a word.

Well, okay. It's all fine as long as you don't play with guns and hurt people, I guess.

Quote from soebek

Now, none of us (including you) have any real evidence other than that vague paragraph. We won't know for sure until the pre-release.

We can all agree to this. However,

Not, it's not "completely clear" because you're misreading the sentence. You're drawing conclusions based on no real evidence in the words.

They say in that article that there is a possibility of drawing a god that matches your colours. That doesn't mean you have a chance of multiple gods, it just means that you have a chance of drawing a god, and that god will match your colours. If black gets Mogis, and only Mogis, it won't render that sentence invalid - black will have a chance of drawing a god, and that god (Mogis) will share its colours.

I do think you have read and interpreted Joneleth Irenicus's post properly. Joneleth is suggesting that, for the black pack, for instance, you can pull either a Mogis or Phenax. He (or she) isn't suggesting that you could pull multiple gods in a given pack, though.

In any case, how does Mogis share its colours with black? Black is black; it most definitely doesn't share red with Mogis.

Strangely, blue, particularly for its power in creatures.

Red is quite good too and, depending on your criteria, could be better than blue. It's all hypothetical, though.

Quote from Togaras

Just look and read. They say it is possible to get a god. They dont give any more detailed information about that. They neither say, that it is possible to get only one god by color nor they say that you have the chance of each god that shares a color with your selection.

But with the information we had regarding, how the pack were done last times, I strongly assume, that there is only one possible. And since you can get Mogis in B, its simply shifted to:
B: Mogis
U: Phenax
W: Ephara
G: Karametra
R: Xenagos

So if you say, that wizard clearly says you can get both gods, then please quote the exact phrase.

What are you on about? Besides, of what I can make from your post, you're misinterpreting the article by McArtor; you are reading what you want to read, believing what you want to believe. However, that isn't the truth or a valid interpretation of the position of McArtor or his words. If anything, you should provide evidence in support of what you are saying because it is a bigger stretch than the possibility of receiving only one god per colour. A more appropriate interpretation would be that - oh, never mind; here:

Quote from Joneleth Irenicus

Oh man, they say a god because you can pull one card that is a god, not 10.

BTW they don't just say "a god", they say "a multicolor God for your chosen color" that is completely different, as you have two candidates fitting that description for each color. That is what that phrase means, I don't have to quote something else, that's completely clear as it is.

That is more reasonable than the possibility of only receiving one god per colour, as, indeed, there are two gods that comply with the condition 'of the colour'.

Quote from burdgod

In an article on DailyMTG entitled Born of the Gods Prerelease primer Mike McArtor says this:



http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/284

And underneath has a picture of Mogis, God of Slaughter with a checkmark over and and a picture of Champion of Stray Souls with an X through it.

This most likely means that it is possible to get Mogis in the black prerelease pack, and probably not in the red prerelease pack.

No, it doesn't. There are other hypotheses that could be exhausted before it most likely means that Mogis is solely in the black prerelease pack.

Besides, it is only for the sake of example.

This would mean that the other black planeswalker, Phenax, God of Deception, will likely only appear in the blue packs, rather than the black ones, and extrapolating this further, Ephara, God of the Polis will likely be in white, Karametra, God of Harvests in green, and Xenagos, God of Revels in red.

However, if there is only one god per colour, this would be reasonable.

I don't do prereleases, but red is clearly the strongest, followed by white. The other colours are fairly decent as well, so I guess that's a sign that Born of the Gods is rather well designed with regard to power across the colours.

Chromanticore is surprisingly fine. Like everyone else, I was expecting this to unplayable because it is not great and it really does not work with other cards (what with devotion and everything); however, it has been shown that it is better than it seems.

I want to like Brimaz, even for White Weenie, but this looks like a 3/4 or 4/5 and that's all. As a legendary creature, I can't really say that it's really above curve, and it's definitely not the case that I would want four copies in a deck. However, perhaps with another colour, in addition to white or a dedicated build with Anthems and so on, this could really shine.

Who is this Brimaz guy anyway?

Imported Rekorderlig. So many flavours, but I have the orange and ginger cider one.

Why is this thread full of liquor, lol?

Quote from Galspanic

I think that even more of a catch all is: "If you appropriate imagery, do it by hand, and cite your sources. Do not scan/photograph someone else's work and then mechanically reproduce it."

You're either intentionally missing the point or not, eh.



Eh, no one is going to sue fan artists or alterists.

Quote from Galspanic

Your post started with:
"Obviously, I'm not here to stir up trouble, but what is the current staff position on altered MTG artworks and what is the general user's position on altered MTG artwork?"
I assumed that was a question and I want to answer that for you if I can. But I need to make sure we are working with mutually understood definitions since this question comes up a lot and there are a lot of answers because of those varying definitions of the word "alter."

Okay, so the hand painted part is a huge part of this. Anything hand painted has been okay in the eyes of the MTGS staff and has even been featured on Wizards of the Coast's website. I have found no one in any position of authority or majority that feels like hand painted alterations are a legal, ethical, or moral problem for the MTG community as a whole.

Ok.

FYI, I deliberately phrased it as a question to set up the thread in a discursive manner. If I should be more careful in the future, do advise me so I can set up a thread for discussion and a thread for Q&A differently.

I agree that being on the same page is probably important on working towards the solution to this.

People have been sued for using Wizard's copyrighted material. The creator of the cards being sold in the post you refer to above was sued. Even Steve Argyle had to yank his Lili/Chandra stuff because....

Wizards protects their copyrights from what I've seen.

Haha, even 'worse' (more serious) than I thought. So, the words to the wise here are don't appropriate what isn't yours or what you aren't permitted to use?

If so, I concur.

Quote from Galspanic

Those stickers do not contain copyrighted material, so those would be fine.

Um, well, obviously not.

This is the not the actual topic of discussion, you must realize.

This part... I don't understand what any of this means. Can you rephrase that?

I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.

Due respect, I do not appreciate this tried and trued approach and attitude that is part and parcel of MTGS. I see it in discussions and debates to which staff users and non-staff users alike are partisan.

The final line, "I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.", is telling. This isn't my question and it certainly isn't a personal thing; this is an issue that concerns the forum at large. Moreover, the choice of "answer" is interesting, as there is no simple answer with which to adequately respond to and dispense of this issue. In fact, "answer" suggests to me that this is something that is done not as a matter of fact but as a matter of form. The questions raised are to stimulate an honest dialogue and discussion, which might be rather refreshing, and not to seek answers.

That aside, the issues at hand are these:

1. What is the current policy and understanding of alters of staff and of other users?
2. What should be the policy and understanding of alters?

Alters or altered-artwork cards, in these questions, refer to cards that are altered (plain English definition, so that encompasses 'hand[-]painted alteration[s]').

The thread is of a multifarious nature. Though I do not agree with any user who attempts to deceive or has deceived another user and steals from Wizards and damages its properties, it nevertheless seems hypocritical and inconsistent to cast judgment upon users when the equally serious issue of altered arts has not been discussed or it has and it has been found, with whatever reasoning (up to this point not shown), that altered artwork is somehow acceptable. If the rationale can be laid out, fine; we're all much obliged.

Quote from Ophidian Eye

If I were to alter a card, but still used images I didn't own (like hand-drawing Chandra on a card), and then decided to sell it, that would be illegal, correct? Would I be able to use that card for my own use legally?

The facts, it would seem, are this:

• Wizards owns Chandra and its image.
• You do not own Chandra and do have Wizards' express permission (e.g., a licence) to use the image of Chandra.

In consideration of these facts, it would be likely that you are in fact breaking the law, and fair use doctrine may not apply. (I have made no thorough study of the thousands of U.S. fair use cases; anyone who has done so, your input here would also be appreciated.)

The only thing saving your behind is the fact that no powers that be know of it and, if they do, they have not taken action.

That no one has been sued, however, is clearly not to suggest that it is permissible or even something good to be done once, much less time and again.

Quote from Galspanic

Typically, when something is hand rendered that is considered okay. Some guy named Steve Argyle posted here a while ago... whoever he is

I had to Google Steve Argyle, with quotation marks, so...


I think Steve's response is considered and well structured. However, there are parts where it leaves you wanting. The lines between his 'objective' and 'opinion' are blurry, but the main issue is that parts of the 'objective' are questionable. That Steve mentions both fair use and/or parody, though sometimes they are distinguished for appropriate reasons, suggests that one should take his opinion with a grain of salt and it may not be an entirely credible statement.

If Steve Argyle's response, which is not necessarily that of other illustrators, Wizards of the Coast, or what is right, is the position of the staff, would the staff's original opinion or an interpretation of Steve's statement be kindly produced as soon as feasible?


Brandon, you a doctoral student or have completed your doctorate. You yourself must be aware of some IP issues in writing your thesis or publishing your manuscripts. Even if you were to simply use a(n adapted or modified) figure as part of a chapter in your thesis, which may very well never see the light of day besides in the thesis itself, which is stored in libraries, you would ensure that you had the blessing of the figure's creators and did what was due of you to include it in your thesis, right?

Anyway, I thought to ask 'how goes it?' and I have lost my train of thought regarding this point. I think it was alterations are by and large inappropriate and, when they are, you have to jump through hoops. Here, the hoops may not have been jumped through.

If bar means nightclub or somewhere where it shouldn't be done, no.

If bar means something more like a public house or pub or the establishment in Cheers, why not?

Quote from TheRogue

business volume at my friends bar has been really slow these past few months and the though came to my mind about running magic tournaments at the bar on the evening where he gets very little business.

How do you figure that is a good idea, though? Is your area chock-a-block with Magic players and no other sorts of customers for a bar and it is without a games store that does booster drafts?

To increase patronage and business, why not focus on attracting other demographics?

Edit: Why not consider some of these tips?

Step 1Make your restaurant visible in the local media by placing strategic radio, television, Internet or print advertisements. Target locally-based blogs, websites and directories, newspapers, community newsletters and TV stations.

Quote from TheRogue »

the trade off is, unlike a regular magic shop I cannot stock store credit and have extra to product sell back to players, because this venue won't stock merchandise.

Are you even allowed to organise this sort of thing?

Honestly, this sounds sketchy and I wouldn't trust you. Distil it down a few times, what really is in it for the customer?