Lots of people don't play to win so losing is fine.
Maybe I should have said "interacting should be discouraged," then.
Even for the people who don't play to win, they play to achieve some goal. Using counterspells or removal or any type of interaction with them could prevent them from reaching that goal, so they won't have fun.
Interacting is bad, m'kay?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Maybe I should have said "interacting should be discouraged," then.
Even for the people who don't play to win, they play to achieve some goal. Using counterspells or removal or any type of interaction with them could prevent them from reaching that goal, so they won't have fun.
Interacting is bad, m'kay?
Interacting is fine, just depends on how you do it.
Doom Blade: probably in the clear
Counterspell: worse than Doom Blade
Mass LD:
That's like saying, "eating snickers should be discouraged because it's a snack me and my playgroup don't like"
Other people eating snickers doesn't really affect you does it? I mean if your playgroup has a severe allergic reaction or someone eating snickers negatively affects your group in some other way by all means discourage people from eating snickers around you.
Interacting is fine, just depends on how you do it.
Doom Blade: probably in the clear
Counterspell: worse than Doom Blade
Mass LD:
juwdah has a valid point... unfortunatly its the same point i've been making for the sheldon article and the banlist thread
noob:"its yucky i want it banned!!"
player:"I just countered your general because you were about to butt-**** me"
noob:"I WANT IT BANNED!!!"
PLAYER: ...*facepalm*
juwdah has a valid point... unfortunatly its the same point i've been making for the sheldon article and the banlist thread
noob:"its yucky i want it banned!!"
player:"I just countered your general because you were about to butt-**** me"
noob:"I WANT IT BANNED!!!"
PLAYER: ...*facepalm*
See I'm understanding it more like
Reasonable person that may or may not suck: I don't enjoy this particular strategy and neither does my playgroup so please play a different deck.
People in Sheldon thread: IT'S A VALID STRATEGY YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT RUNANSWERSNOOBSAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Other people eating snickers doesn't really affect you does it? I mean if your playgroup has a severe allergic reaction or someone eating snickers negatively affects your group in some other way by all means discourage people from eating snickers around you.
It doesn't mean I'm not trying to prove a point. If you want a "clear comparison" I'll try and make one for you..
Let's take.. Basketball, there's the tall player, let's say it's green. He has the advantage of being tall, ramp. The shorter players have to use tricks to overcome that advantage and use tricks to get "in between his legs". Green doesn't like this, he thinks it's cheating because he can't play as well when they use tricks against him. Green and other Green want to discourage such play and want the smaller players to try and play like taller players because that is "the fun way" in green's eyes. Shorter, smaller players will now always have their disadvantage because a social contract states they can't use their advantage to the fullest, because it uses "cheap tricks"
Let's say, it's an imaginary world after all, they buy "big legs" aka, use ramp tactics, like green and go battle cruiser. They'll have a grasp of the fun Green likes, but will always be the player that has to "conform" to social contract and never feel in it's place.
Why couldn't green just accept tricks and try to beat it? Why was green untolerant? and the main question Is this still adherrent to the social contract? Isn't green breaking this?
Reasonable person that may or may not suck: I don't enjoy this particular strategy and neither does my playgroup so please play a different deck.
People in Sheldon thread: IT'S A VALID STRATEGY YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT RUNANSWERSNOOBSAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and the opposite can be said of everyone that posts in the banlist thread... what i'm trying to say is that your group can do the ok thing and not grow as a players by banning a strategy or card, but I and most people I know believe in growing as players if a certain strategy is butt-****ing you find a way to beat it, evolve don't just ban something.
It doesn't mean I'm not trying to prove a point. If you want a "clear comparison" I'll try and make one for you..
Let's take.. Basketball, there's the tall player, let's say it's green. He has the advantage of being tall, ramp. The shorter players have to use tricks to overcome that advantage and use tricks to get "in between his legs". Green doesn't like this, he thinks it's cheating because he can't play as well when they use tricks against him. Green and other Green want to discourage such play and want the smaller players to try and play like taller players because that is "the fun way" in green's eyes. Shorter, smaller players will now always have their disadvantage because a social contract states they can't use their advantage to the fullest, because it uses "cheap tricks"
Let's say, it's an imaginary world after all, they buy "big legs" aka, use ramp tactics, like green and go battle cruiser. They'll have a grasp of the fun Green likes, but will always be the player that has to "conform" to social contract and never feel in it's place.
Why couldn't green just accept tricks and try to beat it? Why was green untolerant? and the main question Is this still adherrent to the social contract? Isn't green breaking this?
if I read this right, and I'd like to think that I did, I agree with you
if I read this right, and I'd like to think that I did, I agree with you
English isn't my first language, but I think I got it to an understandable context somehow. If there's anything vague I can definitely try to correct it
English isn't my first language, but I think I got it to an understandable context somehow. If there's anything vague I can definitely try to correct it
i think of it as a metaphor for what i said at the exact same time lol
It doesn't mean I'm not trying to prove a point. If you want a "clear comparison" I'll try and make one for you..
Let's take.. Basketball, there's the tall player, let's say it's green. He has the advantage of being tall, ramp. The shorter players have to use tricks to overcome that advantage and use tricks to get "in between his legs". Green doesn't like this, he thinks it's cheating because he can't play as well when they use tricks against him. Green and other Green want to discourage such play and want the smaller players to try and play like taller players because that is "the fun way" in green's eyes. Shorter, smaller players will now always have their disadvantage because a social contract states they can't use their advantage to the fullest, because it uses "cheap tricks"
Let's say, it's an imaginary world after all, they buy "big legs" aka, use ramp tactics, like green and go battle cruiser. They'll have a grasp of the fun Green likes, but will always be the player that has to "conform" to social contract and never feel in it's place.
Why couldn't green just accept tricks and try to beat it? Why was green untolerant? and the main question Is this still adherrent to the social contract? Isn't green breaking this?
Sorry but you've kind of lost me here. Let's talk about Magic and not basketball or snickers. If a playgroup doesn't like playing against X why shouldn't they discourage people from running X in their playgroup? It doesn't matter if they can beat it or not, they just don't like playing against it.
Sorry but you've kind of lost me here. Let's talk about Magic and not basketball or snickers. If a playgroup doesn't like playing against X why shouldn't they discourage people from running X in their playgroup? It doesn't matter if they can beat it or not, they just don't like playing against it.
You have a disability in a way that you can't understand metaphors?
Alright I'll give in a little more..
Let's talk "magic".
If I were to say I don't like playing against decks that.. use tutors, land-tutors included. And three other people agreed with me. The playgroup consists of 7 players and it makes it 4 - 3.
Are we in our right? Should everyone stop playing land tutors?
No.
This is a (sorry) retarded and simple minded way of solving things. Do you teach your kids to eat vegetables? Or do you give them what they want every time?
Do you teach your friends to accept strategies? Or do you give them what they want every time? Do you teach your kids to tolerate personalities when they play with their friends? Or do you say "your opinion is the only one that matters and they should bend"
Do you teach your friends to tolerate certain cards when playing in a group? Or do you discourage them for playing them because you don't like them?
This is a basic of social interaction.
Be tolerant, aim to have fun, accept other people's opinions and together, try to make it so that everyone will have fun.
Land destruction should be discouraged because it's not a strategy people enjoy. Sorry it's just the way things are.
Is YOU, and probably your playgroup sharing the opinion, forcing it onto people. There will be people who will blindly accept this, but a bold statement like this should make any adult who has any understanding of what's objective and subjective shivver.
And frankly, I'd rather you keep such things to yourself instead of acting like a child preaching such bold, harsh statements.
Sorry but you've kind of lost me here. Let's talk about Magic and not basketball or snickers. If a playgroup doesn't like playing against X why shouldn't they discourage people from running X in their playgroup? It doesn't matter if they can beat it or not, they just don't like playing against it.
In their playgroup? Fine, so long as they don't want to pretend they're actually inclusive and accepting of other playstyles.
For the format? The mindset is toxic. The strength of EDH as a format is that it allows for the widest possible array of potentially effective deckbuilding strategies. Singling out resource-control of various sorts - LD, discard, etc - as inherently unfun has the effect of unnecessarily narrowing the potential strategies and decks allowed in the format.
I always felt that bob's hints were more subtle than yours.
EDIT: and usually more successful it would seem.
Hi guys. Some nice and friendly person made a whole thread to discuss Sheldon's article, social contracts, snickers, and what other people may or may not find fun.
Go talk about that stuff over there please, and not here.
========
Has anybody seen the pictures of the baby panda? Everyone in my office thinks it's cute, but it looks like a possum or something to me...
Hi guys. Some nice and friendly person made a whole thread to discuss Sheldon's article, social contracts, snickers, and what other people may or may not find fun.
Go talk about that stuff over there please, and not here.
.
Sorry, I just used this thread because I responded to what was.. In this thread. Either way, feel free to move the discussion and all it's posts to that thread.
Hi guys. Some nice and friendly person made a whole thread to discuss Sheldon's article, social contracts, snickers, and what other people may or may not find fun.
Go talk about that stuff over there please, and not here.
========
Has anybody seen the pictures of the baby panda? Everyone in my office thinks it's cute, but it looks like a possum or something to me...
Baby anything's are usually adorable. Just gently remind them like every other baby it'll poop, pee, cry, and be a general hassle. That'll change their minds reallll quick.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Lots of people don't play to win so losing is fine.
Maybe I should have said "interacting should be discouraged," then.
Even for the people who don't play to win, they play to achieve some goal. Using counterspells or removal or any type of interaction with them could prevent them from reaching that goal, so they won't have fun.
Interacting is bad, m'kay?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Err?
This is a bold statement..
That's like saying, "eating snickers should be discouraged because it's a snack me and my playgroup don't like"
Sorry for the rudeness but, get your head out of your "you know" before making such statements.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
Interacting is fine, just depends on how you do it.
Doom Blade: probably in the clear
Counterspell: worse than Doom Blade
Mass LD:
Other people eating snickers doesn't really affect you does it? I mean if your playgroup has a severe allergic reaction or someone eating snickers negatively affects your group in some other way by all means discourage people from eating snickers around you.
juwdah has a valid point... unfortunatly its the same point i've been making for the sheldon article and the banlist thread
noob:"its yucky i want it banned!!"
player:"I just countered your general because you were about to butt-**** me"
noob:"I WANT IT BANNED!!!"
PLAYER: ...*facepalm*
reminds me of a patton Oswalt joke
See I'm understanding it more like
Reasonable person that may or may not suck: I don't enjoy this particular strategy and neither does my playgroup so please play a different deck.
People in Sheldon thread: IT'S A VALID STRATEGY YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT RUNANSWERSNOOBSAUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I always felt that bob's hints were more subtle than yours.
EDIT: and usually more successful it would seem.
It doesn't mean I'm not trying to prove a point. If you want a "clear comparison" I'll try and make one for you..
Let's take.. Basketball, there's the tall player, let's say it's green. He has the advantage of being tall, ramp. The shorter players have to use tricks to overcome that advantage and use tricks to get "in between his legs". Green doesn't like this, he thinks it's cheating because he can't play as well when they use tricks against him. Green and other Green want to discourage such play and want the smaller players to try and play like taller players because that is "the fun way" in green's eyes. Shorter, smaller players will now always have their disadvantage because a social contract states they can't use their advantage to the fullest, because it uses "cheap tricks"
Let's say, it's an imaginary world after all, they buy "big legs" aka, use ramp tactics, like green and go battle cruiser. They'll have a grasp of the fun Green likes, but will always be the player that has to "conform" to social contract and never feel in it's place.
Why couldn't green just accept tricks and try to beat it? Why was green untolerant? and the main question
Is this still adherrent to the social contract? Isn't green breaking this?
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
and the opposite can be said of everyone that posts in the banlist thread... what i'm trying to say is that your group can do the ok thing and not grow as a players by banning a strategy or card, but I and most people I know believe in growing as players if a certain strategy is butt-****ing you find a way to beat it, evolve don't just ban something.
if I read this right, and I'd like to think that I did, I agree with you
English isn't my first language, but I think I got it to an understandable context somehow. If there's anything vague I can definitely try to correct it
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
i think of it as a metaphor for what i said at the exact same time lol
Sorry but you've kind of lost me here. Let's talk about Magic and not basketball or snickers. If a playgroup doesn't like playing against X why shouldn't they discourage people from running X in their playgroup? It doesn't matter if they can beat it or not, they just don't like playing against it.
The power....it feels dirty D:
You have a disability in a way that you can't understand metaphors?
Alright I'll give in a little more..
Let's talk "magic".
If I were to say I don't like playing against decks that.. use tutors, land-tutors included. And three other people agreed with me. The playgroup consists of 7 players and it makes it 4 - 3.
Are we in our right? Should everyone stop playing land tutors?
No.
This is a (sorry) retarded and simple minded way of solving things.
Do you teach your kids to eat vegetables? Or do you give them what they want every time?
Do you teach your friends to accept strategies? Or do you give them what they want every time?
Do you teach your kids to tolerate personalities when they play with their friends? Or do you say "your opinion is the only one that matters and they should bend"
Do you teach your friends to tolerate certain cards when playing in a group? Or do you discourage them for playing them because you don't like them?
This is a basic of social interaction.
Be tolerant, aim to have fun, accept other people's opinions and together, try to make it so that everyone will have fun.
Now to come back to what you first said:
Is YOU, and probably your playgroup sharing the opinion, forcing it onto people. There will be people who will blindly accept this, but a bold statement like this should make any adult who has any understanding of what's objective and subjective shivver.
And frankly, I'd rather you keep such things to yourself instead of acting like a child preaching such bold, harsh statements.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
In their playgroup? Fine, so long as they don't want to pretend they're actually inclusive and accepting of other playstyles.
For the format? The mindset is toxic. The strength of EDH as a format is that it allows for the widest possible array of potentially effective deckbuilding strategies. Singling out resource-control of various sorts - LD, discard, etc - as inherently unfun has the effect of unnecessarily narrowing the potential strategies and decks allowed in the format.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffHi guys. Some nice and friendly person made a whole thread to discuss Sheldon's article, social contracts, snickers, and what other people may or may not find fun.
Go talk about that stuff over there please, and not here.
========
Has anybody seen the pictures of the baby panda? Everyone in my office thinks it's cute, but it looks like a possum or something to me...
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Sorry, I just used this thread because I responded to what was.. In this thread. Either way, feel free to move the discussion and all it's posts to that thread.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
Baby anything's are usually adorable. Just gently remind them like every other baby it'll poop, pee, cry, and be a general hassle. That'll change their minds reallll quick.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.