It's no way to run a game, and as standard goes so does OP as a whole.
What does OP have to do with Standard?
I assume he means Organised Play.
This ban is good, but the justification for not banning it Monday is incomprehensible. It was painfully obvious this was needed; it was actually painfully obvious 6 weeks ago or whenever the mid cycle bans were.
When you have various high quality players - of the kind not known for panic and 'BANHAMMER PLS' ranting - and every single one in their constructed reviews says something like "Hey, this assumes guardian is banned because if not just play guardian" then you have a pretty obvious problem.
basically, you and everyone else who has turned up to a GP or played a bunch of FNMs is qualified, and they desperately hope most of you won't turn up. (There are probably several thousand people Q'd in the average country; most organisers are going to budget for a couple of hundred is my guess).
You'll turn up for an event. Some entry fee will apply. If done correctly, it will be one of the sweetest events of the year - a 2 day event with something like 6 draft rounds and 6 standard rounds before a top 8 of the (hopefully) best players in the country. Good side events are also de rigueur, or used to be in a lot of countries.
These will occur in september or october, and the top 2 will qualify for worlds.
Basically, it's like a double WMCQ with sweet side events and a great atmosphere if done well. It's the closest thing to a PT that you can go to without any serious qualification requirement.
You'll need to unpack that a little for me, because I'm not seeing it. What do you define as 'disenfranchised' in this circumstance?
If we passed a law that said that you could only vote Republican or Democrat in an election, and anyone who didn't want to vote Republican or Democrat would be deprived of their vote, would you regard this election as fair?
Because that is precisely what this is. You are legally mandating that someone vote between one of two dominant parties, which is government interference in an election, and you're saying that anyone who doesn't want either of those two does not get a vote, which is disenfranchisement.
There is no way one can argue that preferential voting creates a fair election.
There is no rational way in which this is occurring. EVERYONES VOTE STILL COUNTS.
in a FPTP election, it is *more* true that the stein voters votes don't count because they have *literal zero* impact on determining the winner. Their votes are 100% identical to not turning up to vote.
In a preferential system, once you've knocked out the lowest voted person - be they democrat, republican, green or zoolanderologist, all those people's votes get counted *again*.
I'd be surprised if exert is 'double tap' because the dragon's wording is kind of weird in that case. Why is it 'as this attacks' rather than 'whenever this attacks'?
It kind of needs to be something that changes the state of the creature. Return to your hand would work; sacrifice would work but seems unlikely, -1/-1 might work. I like the idea of bouncing it; you can burninate your opponent or it flies off over to the corner and burninates something else.
Highroller you only have the option of voting for other parties in Instant roll off voting. If you only want to vote for a single party you can mark them down to have your first preference then leave the rest of the ballot blank.
If your party is then knocked out in one of the early rounds your vote is then just discarded then total pool of votes and therefore the target number of votes needed to win goes down.
Right, which is why I don't think this is preferable to our current system. In our current system, third party votes do not get bumped out, they still continue to remain relevant because their votes are still counted in the total votes, and there is the possibility of the spoiler effect. Whereas the preferential vote system removes this.
It's been suggested that this system might be better for third parties, or more representative. It seems neither is true.
This makes literally no sense.
Lets say you have 1000 votes for trump, 975 votes for clinton, and 50 votes for Jill Stein.
In the American system, Trump wins, and the result would have been the same if the Jill Stein voters just didn't turn up. Their votes have absolutely no impact on their candidate winning, AND they don't influence who wins out of the other two.
Voting for a third party here is 100% identical to eating your ballot paper.
In a typical IRV system, the Jill Stein votes get to decide if they would rather have trump win, have clinton win, or they don't care. If say 35 of these voters vote for clinton, 8 vote for trump and 7 exahust their ballots, clinto is the winner instead.
Their votes in every rational sense count, and in some senses count more.
I don't understand why you think their votes get 'bumped out' or why you would *want* the spoiler effect.
Also, let me take this moment to address yet another thing that I think is a problem with your voting system.
Let's say there are, I don't know, 16 candidates running for an office. I decide that I'm going to do the classic "child pushing every button in an elevator" play and fill in every single bubble, because weeeeeee! Bubbles! So I've cast a vote for all 16 candidates. So I've voted 16 times.
Let's say a second person, he's just doesn't give a crap about the election. This one seems ok. This one seems ok. This other person's alright. He just says screw it, can't be bothered, so he votes for all three. So he's voted 3 times.
Then the third person comes in, registered party member, very much ideologically in line with one of the parties, this candidate is perfect, exactly what he/she has been waiting to come along, and that person votes for that one candidate and no others. So he/she has voted once.
So, I get 16 votes for being an ********, someone gets three votes for being apathetic, and the third person who actually cares and exhibits a strong preference gets 1 vote.
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of DJK's suggestion is that you don't say "Fill in the bubble for 16 people~!", but rather "Candidate B gets first, candidate P gets second, candidate A gets third, candidate H gets fourth..." Getting ranked first is worth more than getting ranked 16th, but getting ranked 16th is still worth something.
That system isn't without problems. For example, if you can omit voting for someone, is that better or worse than getting ranked last? If you have to rank them all, the candidates the voter doesn't care or know about will likely be ranked in whatever order they're listed on the ballot, and it's hardly fair for Senator Aardvark to get higher ranking in the polls than Representative Zyzzyx simply due to listing order.
Listing order is easy-ish to fix. You can randomise once (which gives an advantage but at random) or you can have multiple sets of ballot papers where each candidate gets to be first once and yo get a random one. The later can obviously get expensive if you have a large N of candidates, but is doable.
I'm saying that the daily horoscopes in general are just bad, using just a sub sign is a woefully incomplete chart of any sort. It's like... taking the color pie and only having Green (random example) and saying that's everything in Magic. Not sure if that's a great example though, but can't think of a better one this late.
What other information is lacking that would be needed to make an accurate prediction?
As far as the validity of astrology itself, the issue there is assuming the stars control fate. Influence isn't the same as dictating things, free will and all that jazz. But, again, don't think there is much to be gained by going into it too much.
Why not? You're saying that there's a reliable method of prognostication - that would be unbelievably valuable if it were to exist. We have everything to gain by going into it.
Free will and diviniation are radically incompatible. If I can simply choose *not* to be in the car accident, I'm not fated to be in it, am I?
I don't think free will and divination are necessarily incompatible. Now, in your scenario, IF the divination said you'd be in a car accident, AND there were nothing you could do to change that - for instance, if you knew the exact date and time, but could not choose to just not get into your car and not drive - then yes, it would mean you didn't have free will. That doesn't mean there's no free will if there's divination.
Your fate is determined or it isn't.
If your fate is determined, it is strictly impossible for you to have free will, because otherwise what the gibbering hell do you think free will means? (You can have the *sensation* of having free will, but you don't have it).
If your fate *isn't* determined, then what on earth are you doing with divination? Any predicition you make more personal than the weather on thursday is probably pretty crazy in a world in which my fate is not fixed.
I'm saying that the daily horoscopes in general are just bad, using just a sub sign is a woefully incomplete chart of any sort. It's like... taking the color pie and only having Green (random example) and saying that's everything in Magic. Not sure if that's a great example though, but can't think of a better one this late.
As far as the validity of astrology itself, the issue there is assuming the stars control fate. Influence isn't the same as dictating things, free will and all that jazz. But, again, don't think there is much to be gained by going into it too much.
Free will and diviniation are radically incompatible. If I can simply choose *not* to be in the car accident, I'm not fated to be in it, am I?
And astrology is patently false. In any given second, several children are born. (it was about 4 in 2014; it will be less but not radically for the last few decades).
Do you actually believe those 4 children have the same fates?
Let's take me as an example; I'm a white male born into a middle class family, highly educated, in a solid profession. I'm single, I more-or-less own my home, etc etc.
Odds are very high that 2 or 3 of the other 4 of me were born into poverty of the must adject nature, and odds that at least one of them is dead are not low. Odds are extremely high that 1 or more of the other 3 are female, which is going to involve a pretty spectacularly different life. I'm about 99% likely to be the smartest of the four of us, and of the order of 95% likely to have the highest income.
The idea that any of this is caused by an alignment of stars is so demonstrably unlikely as to be laughable.
I mean, if life is about preventing suffering as much as possible
You never answered my question regarding this statement. What makes you think this is what life "is about?" Please clarify this.
Considering that every form of life does this in some manner or another it would be reasonable to say that is that aim of life.
I believe you have this exactly backwards. Humans and other animals don't behave in ways to specifically reduce hardship or suffering; they act in ways to increase happiness (or pleasure, or joy, or etc). Now, acting to cause absence of hardship will often appear to be a thing, but reducing hardship is actually just increasing happiness.
A dead organism doesn't have any additional hardship, it's true, but it also has no happiness. So being dead isn't achieving the goal, it's just avoiding it.
Positive suffering is the same as negative happiness; indeed it is plausible that suffering, like cold, doesn't exist; it is just the experience of the lack of its opposite.
Is it weird to anyone else that Segovia is on that list? All the other planes have either had sets set in them or at least a large chunk of a set. Segovia is mentioned on one card from legends - and not a very memorable one at that.
As I understand, you can't even sacrifice it (to trigger revolt for example) if it doesn't deal damage to an opponent since you can't declare a target for the ability.
But you can still sacrifice it at free will, the other effect is just a plus if have dealt damage with it. Otherwise it would have said something like "Sacrifice it only if you have dealt damage with it this turn"
You can't cast spells or use abilities that need a target if they don't have one.
For example: You can't sacrifice seal of doom if there are no non-black creatures in play. Or if your opponent has an ivory mask, you can't unload burn spells from your hand that say 'target opponent'.
well, first and foremost I believe that dead people are dead, and neither suffer nor anything else. There is no heaven.
Putting that aside, the bible's view of salvation is more or less incoherent. No sin I could possibly commit would give any good person the justification for eternal tourment, even if they thought it deserved punishment.
Consider this: If I were a person born who had never heard of Jesus, would it be justifiable to punish me eternally for that? Would it be reasonable to damn me for all time for the time and place of my birth?
I'm going to assume you think that isn't justified; they've had no chance to be saved, after all, and it would make god a bit of a jerk to punish them for it.
But then: I, by being born and *having* heard of Jesus, am being punished. I am made - and god necessarily knows in advance - in a way that I am not a believer. Should I be punished for this? With eternal tourment? Seems sub-par.
I've been here since before here was here (when it was MTGNews, before whatever caused the great migration happened).
I assume he means Organised Play.
This ban is good, but the justification for not banning it Monday is incomprehensible. It was painfully obvious this was needed; it was actually painfully obvious 6 weeks ago or whenever the mid cycle bans were.
When you have various high quality players - of the kind not known for panic and 'BANHAMMER PLS' ranting - and every single one in their constructed reviews says something like "Hey, this assumes guardian is banned because if not just play guardian" then you have a pretty obvious problem.
Still, at least it is now fixed.
basically, you and everyone else who has turned up to a GP or played a bunch of FNMs is qualified, and they desperately hope most of you won't turn up. (There are probably several thousand people Q'd in the average country; most organisers are going to budget for a couple of hundred is my guess).
You'll turn up for an event. Some entry fee will apply. If done correctly, it will be one of the sweetest events of the year - a 2 day event with something like 6 draft rounds and 6 standard rounds before a top 8 of the (hopefully) best players in the country. Good side events are also de rigueur, or used to be in a lot of countries.
These will occur in september or october, and the top 2 will qualify for worlds.
Basically, it's like a double WMCQ with sweet side events and a great atmosphere if done well. It's the closest thing to a PT that you can go to without any serious qualification requirement.
There is no rational way in which this is occurring. EVERYONES VOTE STILL COUNTS.
in a FPTP election, it is *more* true that the stein voters votes don't count because they have *literal zero* impact on determining the winner. Their votes are 100% identical to not turning up to vote.
In a preferential system, once you've knocked out the lowest voted person - be they democrat, republican, green or zoolanderologist, all those people's votes get counted *again*.
It kind of needs to be something that changes the state of the creature. Return to your hand would work; sacrifice would work but seems unlikely, -1/-1 might work. I like the idea of bouncing it; you can burninate your opponent or it flies off over to the corner and burninates something else.
This makes literally no sense.
Lets say you have 1000 votes for trump, 975 votes for clinton, and 50 votes for Jill Stein.
In the American system, Trump wins, and the result would have been the same if the Jill Stein voters just didn't turn up. Their votes have absolutely no impact on their candidate winning, AND they don't influence who wins out of the other two.
Voting for a third party here is 100% identical to eating your ballot paper.
In a typical IRV system, the Jill Stein votes get to decide if they would rather have trump win, have clinton win, or they don't care. If say 35 of these voters vote for clinton, 8 vote for trump and 7 exahust their ballots, clinto is the winner instead.
Their votes in every rational sense count, and in some senses count more.
I don't understand why you think their votes get 'bumped out' or why you would *want* the spoiler effect.
Listing order is easy-ish to fix. You can randomise once (which gives an advantage but at random) or you can have multiple sets of ballot papers where each candidate gets to be first once and yo get a random one. The later can obviously get expensive if you have a large N of candidates, but is doable.
Your fate is determined or it isn't.
If your fate is determined, it is strictly impossible for you to have free will, because otherwise what the gibbering hell do you think free will means? (You can have the *sensation* of having free will, but you don't have it).
If your fate *isn't* determined, then what on earth are you doing with divination? Any predicition you make more personal than the weather on thursday is probably pretty crazy in a world in which my fate is not fixed.
Free will and diviniation are radically incompatible. If I can simply choose *not* to be in the car accident, I'm not fated to be in it, am I?
And astrology is patently false. In any given second, several children are born. (it was about 4 in 2014; it will be less but not radically for the last few decades).
Do you actually believe those 4 children have the same fates?
Let's take me as an example; I'm a white male born into a middle class family, highly educated, in a solid profession. I'm single, I more-or-less own my home, etc etc.
Odds are very high that 2 or 3 of the other 4 of me were born into poverty of the must adject nature, and odds that at least one of them is dead are not low. Odds are extremely high that 1 or more of the other 3 are female, which is going to involve a pretty spectacularly different life. I'm about 99% likely to be the smartest of the four of us, and of the order of 95% likely to have the highest income.
The idea that any of this is caused by an alignment of stars is so demonstrably unlikely as to be laughable.
I believe you have this exactly backwards. Humans and other animals don't behave in ways to specifically reduce hardship or suffering; they act in ways to increase happiness (or pleasure, or joy, or etc). Now, acting to cause absence of hardship will often appear to be a thing, but reducing hardship is actually just increasing happiness.
A dead organism doesn't have any additional hardship, it's true, but it also has no happiness. So being dead isn't achieving the goal, it's just avoiding it.
Positive suffering is the same as negative happiness; indeed it is plausible that suffering, like cold, doesn't exist; it is just the experience of the lack of its opposite.
You can't cast spells or use abilities that need a target if they don't have one.
For example: You can't sacrifice seal of doom if there are no non-black creatures in play. Or if your opponent has an ivory mask, you can't unload burn spells from your hand that say 'target opponent'.
Putting that aside, the bible's view of salvation is more or less incoherent. No sin I could possibly commit would give any good person the justification for eternal tourment, even if they thought it deserved punishment.
Consider this: If I were a person born who had never heard of Jesus, would it be justifiable to punish me eternally for that? Would it be reasonable to damn me for all time for the time and place of my birth?
I'm going to assume you think that isn't justified; they've had no chance to be saved, after all, and it would make god a bit of a jerk to punish them for it.
But then: I, by being born and *having* heard of Jesus, am being punished. I am made - and god necessarily knows in advance - in a way that I am not a believer. Should I be punished for this? With eternal tourment? Seems sub-par.