You can do whatever you want and treat a player however you want. My issue is that Sheldon, the head of the RC seems to be ok with this. This seems hypocritical to me. The player came to his shop, to play a format the he created and manages, with a deck built by his rules. And Sheldon seems ok with him being shunned. That's pretty sorry in my book.
How is it hypocritical? What conflicting statement has he made? If anything, he's constantly talking about the Scott Evil principle and the Armada Games league rules, so you should know what to expect when you come to his shop to play.
Also, in what way is he being mistreated?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
How is it hypocritical? What conflicting statement has he made? If anything, he's constantly talking about the Scott Evil principle and the Armada Games league rules, so you should know what to expect when you come to his shop to play.
Also, in what way is he being mistreated?
If I were to come to Armada Games, I would expect to be able to play a Commander game under the rules set forth by the RC. If they have an achivement system, ok, that's fine. I just think it's crap that the head of the RC is ok with telling a guy, "No, we don't want to play with you becuase we don't like what you're playing". Then that same RC member turns around and tries to foster a "Social" format. I've played this game for almost 20 years, and never once have I told a guy that I wouldn't play him because of what he was playing. The fact that this happened in a casual setting makes it even worse. How can you foster a "Social" format and then treat players in the format like this? I just don't get it.
If I were to come to Armada Games, I would expect to be able to play a Commander game under the rules set forth by the RC. If they have an achivement system, ok, that's fine. I just think it's crap that the head of the RC is ok with telling a guy, "No, we don't want to play with you becuase we don't like what you're playing".
You keep restating your "point", but you won't answer my questions. I read what you said. Can you defend it at all, or is it just angry feel-bads?
Then that same RC member turns around and tries to foster a "Social" format. How can you foster a "Social" format and then treat players in the format like this? The fact that this happened in a casual setting makes it even worse. I just don't get it.
They decided, based on what he said, that they didn't want to play against him. How is that not social? Social doesn't mean everyone is guaranteed a game regardless of all factors. Driving to the store does not create a social contract.
If it was a casual setting at all, then that was decided socially, by the existing players. Owning some cardboard does not entitle you to the forbearance of others.
And again, how is this player being mistreated? Be specific.
We have a guy with a deck like the one Sheldon mentioned. Our guy is an insufferable, antisocial douchecanoe who takes every aggresive move against him personally - and feels attacked enough that he needs the perfect deck to vanquish his perceived aggressors. He's posted here on the forums here a few times about finding the least fun, most powerful deck to play with - and he really makes the game an uncomfortable, miserable experience for the 5-7 other guys at the table with him. We're a bunch of casual smart alecs in our mid 20's to 30's who came out to blow off some steam and get away from our obligations while ruthlessly insulting eachother (all in good fun).
Sometimes, the attitude a player brings to the table is more important than the deck they're playing. I'm willing to bet that was the case in Sheldon's example.
This aligns firmly with my experience. It would be less true in an environment where everyone plays decks like that, but if you're the only one trying to play a deck like that, you're probably not a fun person to play against.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
Again, you're kind of meandering. Maybe you could take the time to edit your posts for clarity?
You keep restating your "point", but you won't answer my questions. I read what you said. Can you defend it at all, or is it just angry feel-bads?
They decided, based on what he said, that they didn't want to play against him. How is that not social? Social doesn't mean everyone is guaranteed a game regardless of all factors. Driving to the store does not create a social contract.
If it was a casual setting at all, then that was decided socially, by the existing players. Owning some cardboard does not entitle you to the forbearance of others.
And again, how is this player being mistreated? Be specific.
I believe you, but that has nothing to do with anything. You can make your own adult human being decisions, as can we all.
This aligns firmly with my experience. It would be less true in an environment where everyone plays decks like that, but if you're the only one trying to play a deck like that, you're probably not a fun person to play against.
Is your question "How was he mistreated"?
He showed up with a deck built under the current rules of the format and players told him to take a hike basically. Why is viewed by so many as ok? The guy drove out to the shop, looking to play a game, probably buy some stuff from the shop, and was told by it's players to take a hike. I think if this were me, I would make sure everyone I knew never visted that shop again, and I would give it every bit of bad press that was legally possible. I can understand not wanting to play a jerk, but all this guy said was I can do so and so by turn 5. My response...Prove it, lets play. I would have figured the elite players at Armada Games would have said the same, instead, they went to hide and cuddle with Craw Wurms evedently.
It's not always an arms race to beat a guy who can win by turn 5.
In a multiplayer game, where people should have some damn removal, if the whole table cannot counter 1 spell, or destroy 1 permanent to stop and infinite, then they should seriously consider running more removal.
One dent in a delicate combo and there are 2-3 turns and a tutor or 2 wasted, and possibly a couple dead cards in hand or in play for that player. Oh you spent your whole hand to ramp up to tooth and nail for kiki-jiki + zealous conscripts?
Okay go ahead - 'I make a token with kiki... - In response I swords to plowshares your kiki jiki' - and the game continues on (actually doing it with the zealous conscripts trigger on the stack targetting kiki-jiki is the better move since it wastes that trigger as well). Problem solved by one card. That card could easily be any other type of removal. Perhaps a counterspell on the tooth and nail even.
Plus, if it's that bad, have the whole table gang up on them (but really only if it's that bad, not just because he won 1 game with an infinite). Unless that one player's deck is that much better (ie everyone at the table other than him is new to the format), he should not be able to handle a 3v1.
Amongst others! Other questions I've asked you so far include:
Quote from »
If I can't refuse to play against a consistent turn X kill deck, then my options become "lose every time" or "build a consistent turn X kill deck". How is that not an arms race?
How is it hypocritical? What conflicting statement has he made?
They decided, based on what he said, that they didn't want to play against him. How is that not social? Social doesn't mean everyone is guaranteed a game regardless of all factors. Driving to the store does not create a social contract.
You should try to answer them! As for your existing answer:
New guy came into the shop last night and started bragging about how his Jhoira deck consistently suspended Obliterate and Eldrazi by turn 5...and then was upset when people declined games with him.
So it's really more like, "He showed up with a deck built under the current rules of the format, told everyone in earshot it would win uninteractively on turn 5, and then when he asked people to play with him, nobody wanted to." You completely discard any kind of rights or agency of people besides Johnny Fiveturns. Those people matter too.
Nobody told the kid to take a hike. There was no driving rain, no sad piano music. He said something that made people not want to play cards with him, and then they didn't want to play cards with him. I would call that "his fault".
Why is viewed by so many as ok? The guy drove out to the shop, looking to play a game, probably buy some stuff from the shop, and was told by it's players to take a hike.
Driving to a card shop does not obligate the players inside to indulge you. They do not owe you gas money.
I think if this were me, I would make sure everyone I knew never visted that shop again, and I would give it every bit of bad press that was legally possible.
That might be the idea, overall. What kind of bad press did you have in mind? (Another question!)
I can understand not wanting to play a jerk, but all this guy said was I can do so and so by turn 5. My response...Prove it, lets play. I would have figured the elite players at Armada Games would have said the same, instead, they went to hide and cuddle with Craw Wurms evedently.
Who said the players at Armada Games were elite? You clearly don't think so, since you go right to insisting they all play Craw Wurms. The fact that you would play against Johnny Fiveturns does not obligate anyone else to play against Johnny Fiveturns.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
He showed up with a deck built under the current rules of the format and players told him to take a hike basically. Why is viewed by so many as ok? The guy drove out to the shop, looking to play a game, probably buy some stuff from the shop, and was told by it's players to take a hike. I think if this were me, I would make sure everyone I knew never visted that shop again, and I would give it every bit of bad press that was legally possible. I can understand not wanting to play a jerk, but all this guy said was I can do so and so by turn 5. My response...Prove it, lets play. I would have figured the elite players at Armada Games would have said the same, instead, they went to hide and cuddle with Craw Wurms evedently.
The biggest issue I see here is that you are not seeing the "social format" aspect. A game of EDH with friends isn't a tournament, it is time to enjoy with your friends, and hopefully make some new ones in the process. If someone is coming to the table with the desire to end the game abruptly and quickly end what should be a fun, social game with friends, then their might be an issue.
It should be noted, he wasn't told to take a hike, he was told that they didn't want to play against an ultra competitive EDH deck. Some people want to play to enjoy cool interactions, not everything is gone on turn 5.
The fact that you would discourage attendance to a shop because of some of the players says something about you. Just because players at a shop don't share your same vision, does not mean that the shop is evil. Again, there is nothing wrong with declining a game.
To the final, instigating point, you don't have to prove anything. I will take the guy at his word that his deck is unfun and non-interactive (from my perspective, bear in mind). Why would I subject myself to that? I am under no obligation to play with anyone that I don't want to. That makes as much sense as being forced to go to a restaurant because you saw one of their commercials.
What Sheldon did is not mean, it is not degrading, and it certainly isn't a jerk move. Each individual has the right to play with whomever they please, and when someone brings something to the table saying that they will combo off (or other things) by turn 5 so you don't stand a chance, alright, I will play a game where I can enjoy my deck. Let people play how they want to play and don't take offense at everything. <You sound like a vegan.>
The biggest issue I see here is that you are not seeing the "social format" aspect. A game of EDH with friends isn't a tournament, it is time to enjoy with your friends, and hopefully make some new ones in the process. If someone is coming to the table with the desire to end the game abruptly and quickly end what should be a fun, social game with friends, then their might be an issue.
It should be noted, he wasn't told to take a hike, he was told that they didn't want to play against an ultra competitive EDH deck. Some people want to play to enjoy cool interactions, not everything is gone on turn 5.
The fact that you would discourage attendance to a shop because of some of the players says something about you. Just because players at a shop don't share your same vision, does not mean that the shop is evil. Again, there is nothing wrong with declining a game.
To the final, instigating point, you don't have to prove anything. I will take the guy at his word that his deck is unfun and non-interactive (from my perspective, bear in mind). Why would I subject myself to that? I am under no obligation to play with anyone that I don't want to. That makes as much sense as being forced to go to a restaurant because you saw one of their commercials.
What Sheldon did is not mean, it is not degrading, and it certainly isn't a jerk move. Each individual has the right to play with whomever they please, and when someone brings something to the table saying that they will combo off (or other things) by turn 5 so you don't stand a chance, alright, I will play a game where I can enjoy my deck. Let people play how they want to play and don't take offense at everything. You sound like a vegan.
Wow, I sound like a Vegan? I actually hate veggies and usually eat steak almost raw. I would have been willing to the same to this guys deck if he had shown up a my LGS bragging about a turn 5 win. I just don't see why nobody would give this guy a chance. Odds are he's full of it anyway. My biggest issuse is that Sheldon was ok with it. Guess I'm just more competitive than the guys this player ran into as well as our Head RC. I would view this guy with 5 turn kill as a challenge and call his bluff on it. Don't understand why nobody else would.
You keep saying that. What does it mean? Why is it a problem if Sheldon says that the social format of which he is in charge is defined primarily through social interactions?
Guess I'm just more competitive than the guys this player ran into as well as our Head RC. I would view this guy with 5 turn kill as a challenge and call his bluff on it. Don't understand why nobody else would.
You keep saying this, too. It really sounds like you just want to call Sheldon a wuss, and tell the world your deck beats his deck. Is that it? You should just say that, instead of all the other stuff you're saying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, you think the losers' bracket is your ally, but you merely adopted the scrub tier. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn’t 4-0 an FNM until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but an extra pack to sell for store credit!
People who tell me my deck is bad RIGHT AFTER I beat them with it. Actually happened at a local Modern FNM. I was playing mono-blue Merfolk, he was playing BUG Infect. I Vialed in a Spellskite in response to a lethal Groundswell. He raged, then told me that Merfolk is a bad deck, before storming out. This also happens on Cockatrice regularly. >:|
For what it's worth, the opposite of evergreen is "deciduous" so I suggest we start using that from now on to refer to shroud, banding, islandhome, etc.
You keep saying that. What does it mean? Why is it a problem if Sheldon says that the social format of which he is in charge is defined primarily through social interactions?
You keep saying this, too. It really sounds like you just want to call Sheldon a wuss, and tell the world your deck beats his deck. Is that it? You should just say that, instead of all the other stuff you're saying.
No, that's not it at all. I don't think Sheldon is a wuss. I actually think he has created and runs the best format in magic. I do however think that the players who shunned this guy were in the wrong. If the format truly is social, then why not sit down with this guy and see what he's got? I don't know that any of my decks would have beat him, but I would have sat down and played him if he asked me for a game. I don't know if I would have played my Pirate themed deck, Norin, Thrax-Stax, or my pauper based Veavictis Asmadi deck, but I would have sat down and played him had he asked for a game. That seems like the social thing to do to me. That is why I find Sheldon's acceptance of this behavior to be hypocritical.
How is it hypocritical? What conflicting statement has he made? If anything, he's constantly talking about the Scott Evil principle and the Armada Games league rules, so you should know what to expect when you come to his shop to play.
Also, in what way is he being mistreated?
If I were to come to Armada Games, I would expect to be able to play a Commander game under the rules set forth by the RC. If they have an achivement system, ok, that's fine. I just think it's crap that the head of the RC is ok with telling a guy, "No, we don't want to play with you becuase we don't like what you're playing". Then that same RC member turns around and tries to foster a "Social" format. I've played this game for almost 20 years, and never once have I told a guy that I wouldn't play him because of what he was playing. The fact that this happened in a casual setting makes it even worse. How can you foster a "Social" format and then treat players in the format like this? I just don't get it.
You keep restating your "point", but you won't answer my questions. I read what you said. Can you defend it at all, or is it just angry feel-bads?
They decided, based on what he said, that they didn't want to play against him. How is that not social? Social doesn't mean everyone is guaranteed a game regardless of all factors. Driving to the store does not create a social contract.
If it was a casual setting at all, then that was decided socially, by the existing players. Owning some cardboard does not entitle you to the forbearance of others.
And again, how is this player being mistreated? Be specific.
I believe you, but that has nothing to do with anything. You can make your own adult human being decisions, as can we all.
This aligns firmly with my experience. It would be less true in an environment where everyone plays decks like that, but if you're the only one trying to play a deck like that, you're probably not a fun person to play against.
Is your question "How was he mistreated"?
He showed up with a deck built under the current rules of the format and players told him to take a hike basically. Why is viewed by so many as ok? The guy drove out to the shop, looking to play a game, probably buy some stuff from the shop, and was told by it's players to take a hike. I think if this were me, I would make sure everyone I knew never visted that shop again, and I would give it every bit of bad press that was legally possible. I can understand not wanting to play a jerk, but all this guy said was I can do so and so by turn 5. My response...Prove it, lets play. I would have figured the elite players at Armada Games would have said the same, instead, they went to hide and cuddle with Craw Wurms evedently.
In a multiplayer game, where people should have some damn removal, if the whole table cannot counter 1 spell, or destroy 1 permanent to stop and infinite, then they should seriously consider running more removal.
One dent in a delicate combo and there are 2-3 turns and a tutor or 2 wasted, and possibly a couple dead cards in hand or in play for that player. Oh you spent your whole hand to ramp up to tooth and nail for kiki-jiki + zealous conscripts?
Okay go ahead - 'I make a token with kiki... - In response I swords to plowshares your kiki jiki' - and the game continues on (actually doing it with the zealous conscripts trigger on the stack targetting kiki-jiki is the better move since it wastes that trigger as well). Problem solved by one card. That card could easily be any other type of removal. Perhaps a counterspell on the tooth and nail even.
Plus, if it's that bad, have the whole table gang up on them (but really only if it's that bad, not just because he won 1 game with an infinite). Unless that one player's deck is that much better (ie everyone at the table other than him is new to the format), he should not be able to handle a 3v1.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR Tajic, Wrath of the Manlands RW
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR Mogis, God of Slaughter RB
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
Amongst others! Other questions I've asked you so far include:
You should try to answer them! As for your existing answer:
Your description of how this player was mistreated does not match with the facts of the situation as given:
So it's really more like, "He showed up with a deck built under the current rules of the format, told everyone in earshot it would win uninteractively on turn 5, and then when he asked people to play with him, nobody wanted to." You completely discard any kind of rights or agency of people besides Johnny Fiveturns. Those people matter too.
Nobody told the kid to take a hike. There was no driving rain, no sad piano music. He said something that made people not want to play cards with him, and then they didn't want to play cards with him. I would call that "his fault".
Driving to a card shop does not obligate the players inside to indulge you. They do not owe you gas money.
That might be the idea, overall. What kind of bad press did you have in mind? (Another question!)
Who said the players at Armada Games were elite? You clearly don't think so, since you go right to insisting they all play Craw Wurms. The fact that you would play against Johnny Fiveturns does not obligate anyone else to play against Johnny Fiveturns.
The biggest issue I see here is that you are not seeing the "social format" aspect. A game of EDH with friends isn't a tournament, it is time to enjoy with your friends, and hopefully make some new ones in the process. If someone is coming to the table with the desire to end the game abruptly and quickly end what should be a fun, social game with friends, then their might be an issue.
It should be noted, he wasn't told to take a hike, he was told that they didn't want to play against an ultra competitive EDH deck. Some people want to play to enjoy cool interactions, not everything is gone on turn 5.
The fact that you would discourage attendance to a shop because of some of the players says something about you. Just because players at a shop don't share your same vision, does not mean that the shop is evil. Again, there is nothing wrong with declining a game.
To the final, instigating point, you don't have to prove anything. I will take the guy at his word that his deck is unfun and non-interactive (from my perspective, bear in mind). Why would I subject myself to that? I am under no obligation to play with anyone that I don't want to. That makes as much sense as being forced to go to a restaurant because you saw one of their commercials.
What Sheldon did is not mean, it is not degrading, and it certainly isn't a jerk move. Each individual has the right to play with whomever they please, and when someone brings something to the table saying that they will combo off (or other things) by turn 5 so you don't stand a chance, alright, I will play a game where I can enjoy my deck. Let people play how they want to play and don't take offense at everything. <You sound like a vegan.>
Warning for flaming. - cryogen
MTGS egos at their finest.
Thoughts on proxies:
Wow, I sound like a Vegan? I actually hate veggies and usually eat steak almost raw. I would have been willing to the same to this guys deck if he had shown up a my LGS bragging about a turn 5 win. I just don't see why nobody would give this guy a chance. Odds are he's full of it anyway. My biggest issuse is that Sheldon was ok with it. Guess I'm just more competitive than the guys this player ran into as well as our Head RC. I would view this guy with 5 turn kill as a challenge and call his bluff on it. Don't understand why nobody else would.
You keep saying that. What does it mean? Why is it a problem if Sheldon says that the social format of which he is in charge is defined primarily through social interactions?
You keep saying this, too. It really sounds like you just want to call Sheldon a wuss, and tell the world your deck beats his deck. Is that it? You should just say that, instead of all the other stuff you're saying.
Quotes:
No, that's not it at all. I don't think Sheldon is a wuss. I actually think he has created and runs the best format in magic. I do however think that the players who shunned this guy were in the wrong. If the format truly is social, then why not sit down with this guy and see what he's got? I don't know that any of my decks would have beat him, but I would have sat down and played him if he asked me for a game. I don't know if I would have played my Pirate themed deck, Norin, Thrax-Stax, or my pauper based Veavictis Asmadi deck, but I would have sat down and played him had he asked for a game. That seems like the social thing to do to me. That is why I find Sheldon's acceptance of this behavior to be hypocritical.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies