MTG Salvation

Quote from blacklotus »

Quote from cyberium_neo »

Quote from blacklotus »

this complete block will sucks A LOT if the dont reprint FETCHLANDS on it, this will be Born of the Godscrap 2.0

the will put it fetch just for sell this crappy block, i know

What made you think the game of Magic is to satisfy only the elite?

this is a competitive game, i just trade/trash all the crappy cards that dont see competitive play, so this block whit no fetchs inside its a crappy casual thing, just for maro get richer for casual eat-doritos fat-guys who plays casual random magic play, so give me some fetch or dont buy anything

I don't even know where to begin...

Man, it is getting difficult to keep up with this thread. Everytime I post, another conversation happens. I am just going to simply read and like all the posts I like...

Comment Hidden

Someone on Wizards staff is probably reading this thread laughing at all of us who are flipping out.

Quote from Empathogen »

Quote from LuckyJoe1988 »

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/95510511368/is-mondays-article-about-the-abolishment-of-the

Well, that get's rid of the reserved list idea...

That doesn't rule out removing every card from it except Phyrexian Negator.
Keep hope alive!

Granted, I hate the Reserve List as well as the next person here, and I'd be in the front row with open arms to welcome back our dualies.

However, even if the Reserve List WAS abolished, then some of the old time collectors would, of course, still be upset. (Who cares seriously?)

Hence this other link...

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/95488843208/do-you-think-next-mondays-article-will-be-talked-about

I am 98% positive it is NOT going anywhere anytime soon.

But, I still have that 2% hope that ya'll can throw in my face if I am wrong!

Quote from Jermo48 »

"other than flying"

Yes, let's just ignore parts of cards. That makes card evaluation effective.

Nothing was ignored. Try not to take what I said out of context. I stand by what I said because the two abilities are comparable in power. One is not better than the other. Knowing you in this conversation, you will probably disagree for reasons I have no idea.

Quote from Jermo48 »

I mean, Vulpine Goliath is just an overcosted bear with some more power, toughness and trample, right? It's a bomb BECAUSE it's a 6/6 with flying and because it'll eventually replace itself and probably draw another card whether it's removed, discarded, countered or stays on the battlefield. 6/6 flyers for 6 are bombs - they're well above the curve. 6/5 tramplers for 6 are not bombs - they're pretty much right on curve for green.

It may replace itself, but at the cost of 7 mana for 1-2 cards most of the time, well, I really shouldn't have to explain myself, but even if you draw just one card out of it, you wouldn't be able to use for another turn. I agree, that there are better choices for the Goliath, as you stated in an earlier post, but, along those same lines, there are better choices for blue than the Soul of Ravnica. It really is not that worth it to use such an ability unless you must be in some dire need to gain a card or two. Both cards have better options to choose from in limited.

This creature is only a playable 6 drop creature, hence my original posts. But it contridicts your original ones when you were stating that it was a bomb. There is nothing about this card that makes it exciting to be a bomb, or would win the game any faster than a Vulpine Goliath other than flying.

Many may agree and vise versa on the matter, but the facts do stand.

Quote from Yomako

One thing about this that seems a bit odd. Look at the character "R" on those images. No magic card has had an "R" like that before.

That is because Wizards has changed to a new font in the title names with the new card frame coming out in M15 and then on.

Quote from CardboardCrack

After hearing about this Jace coin, I made the following graph. Unfortunately, I had to chop it up because it doesn't fit on my site. But I can share the graph in all it's glory here.

After I saw this post, I literally looked through the entirety of your website. Worth every moment.

I'd also rather have a real Have over this thing..

I hereby dub these, the "Craplands"...

Quote from Onering »

I love the logic of some people

"Anti semitism isn't evil, it's just an opinion you should respect. Not wanting to pay for art by anti semites is evil, only insane people would think that way!"

Simplifications like this just drive you more in a corner.

If you call everyone anti semit you dont do the real problems any favor.
True evil is problematic, no matter what and how its delivered, and almost never its just one side to blame, the world is way more complex than that.

Its almost always just the blame game, to avoid any dialog, to avoid actual positive benefits of anything, whoever claims to be on the moral high ground basically never is and that exposes them as a fraud for the purpose they claim to fight for.

And the craziest part of all of it, when people justify all kinds of crimes, violence and absolute hate against people and call themselves the victim.
Thats just pathetic.
Argue against the idea, but dont argue against the person itself.

Good artist, terrible person by character.
Hes the kind of guy that could talk themselves out of trouble fairly well (and some people easily fall for that).
Charismatic dude with a terrible character behind the curtain.


Still regardless i would advocate to separate the art from the artist.
Could use a pseudonym if they wanted to, but they just cancel culture everything away if it makes any form of twitter outrage at all.

WotC attracts weirdos and will do so more and more, as nobody in their right mind would currently WANT to work for them, unless they need the money and can risk any form of random twitter outrage about anything of their personal life.

At some point we need to realize that humans are always flawed, there are no real saints if you dig deep enough.

"Diversity", because thinking something different than the extreme left must die.

There is absolute nothing wrong with her viewpoints.
They are neither illegal, nor problematic.

She has a healthy life, a very well relationship with her wive and she does a great job producing art.

----

If people cannot accept that someone values life, family and an open mind to opinions and believes, then who exactly is the "unhealthy" ?

At this day and age people get hate and real life damages by openly expressing their believes and opinions.

That is in no way different from expressing anything else about yourself.
And if someone speaks out for gay rights or anything else, they should be absolutely aware of that, but sadly rarely are.
(As sadly, people that cut the corner for an ideology dismiss anything else and they just fight for their own agenda)


If people cannot believe in the good in every person, they assume the worst and especially in Twitter posts, some very special individuals will only look out to find enemies, in everything and everyone, just for the sake of destroying peoples lives, and even worse, they celebrate themselves for that and claim the morally superiority, which is absolutely sick, as they hurt and destroy everyone around them, including themselves.

Guess what, the very same people that blame and hurt Terese Nielsen are very often mentally sick, unstable and just want to harm themselves and others.
Such a mindset is the true evil, expressing your believes and opinions is NEVER evil, its your damn right to do that.

And before someone jumps around the corner with : "Its freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequences"
Keep in mind that nobodies life should be destroyed by expressing your opinions.
If you cannot speak out as you risk losing your job, or endure massive financial ruin, or even people actively harassing and attacking you physically, they even translate that hate on your family and everyone around you.
Thats not reasonable consequences, thats straight up terrorism, fueled by the deepest and most evil hatred.


No matter what people claim to fight for, the moment they seek out to destroy and hurt others, you have to question your motives.
If you cannot listen to another person opinion without getting angry, then its a "you" problem.

----

Terese Nielsen is beloved for years.
Removing her in such a vile course of actions is just sick.

WotC has no morals, they just pander to the hate mob and screeching banshees that lure them into destroying their own legacy.
WotC was once a place artists really wanted to work with.
At this point its just a job, so many artists very much despise WotC as a company, their entire agenda and the god awful business practices.

(Magic is the best game, made by one of the worst companies in the world)

----

Maybe we will get a similar story like with (The Rebecca Guay Controversy) , just maybe.

But at the stage WotC is falling down the cliff of the insanity ideology, chances are slim.

Suddenly we can infer "ideology" based on who people follow on Twitter. And then we can persecute them for their thoughts. And their supposed thoughts. Except we can't be certain of their thoughts. But that's what the pitchforks of the witch hunt mob are for. You're only as good as the worst thing the account you follow on Twitter has posted, ever!

I love his art and will miss his work but can live with this.

What I will not tolerate is what was done to Terese Nielsen.

It is not the fault of Terese Nielsen or of WotC that we won't get further artwork from her on our cards. It's the fault of Outrage Culture. Everyone has to be outraged about something or another, especially on Twitter. Nielsen is entitled to her beliefs and WotC is entitled to make good money decisions. Maybe a bunch of dumb people screaming about things on Twitter has a lot of weight now. I wonder if the world will grow up and grow toughskinned to this sort of thing? Or if the real trials are yet to come.

In other news, Noah Bradley is a total creepy scumbag who apparently goes around giving out sex invitation cards, and his wife is a cuck who supports him, and that's much more upsetting to me than Terese Nielsen liking goofy politics. By all accounts she's a very sweet and kind woman, how many of you have moms or aunts who have weird political or religious beliefs?

That is the problem I see with cancel culture - it rarely seeks to build up, only to destroy. It looks to remove rather than to educate.

Agreed and well said. But this is where I need to let it go as it will no longer be mentally healthy for me to continue. I have said my piece, put out my opinions and ideas. Possibly agree to disagree and move on for the time. I am going to leave it with a very fitting card in my estimation.

Rest In Peace

Quote from mikeyG »

No, refusing to tolerate antisemitism doesn't make you a Nazi. Or as bad as one, or however you'd like to frame it.

Never thought it did. But saying "I won't treat a [INSERT LABEL] with any compassion" is the first step toward becoming the intolerant, non-compassionate type who dehumanizes others. Is that not sinking to their level? Why is it any better? Because you find "justification"? Pretty sure that's what the other side does, too.

Quote from mikeyG »

"as long as we can counter them by rational argument"

If only everyone would try. You may notice I haven't sided with WOTC or Nielsen here. All I've done is denounce the self-righteous name-callers and people who admit they withhold compassion. I would have stayed out entirely (and probably should have) if people had stuck to rational argument. But I really can't stand hypocrisy.

Quote from mikeyG »

not all perspectives merit equal weight or attention. Some should be challenged, some should be explored in dialogue, some should be educated about to limit its spread, and a select few need to be removed from the public discourse.

I was with you until the very last point. I agree that not all perspectives are equal and that they should be challenged, explored, or educated. But removing perspectives from the public discourse - what do you mean by that? Is that the same thing as turning into the thought police? Is it punishing people for their thoughts rather than their actions? If so, I can't agree with that. Let me know if I've misinterpreted it.
Do you know the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? I believe in freedom of speech. Unfortunately, not all speech is uplifting or unifying. Sometimes speech is a denouncement of the actions or words of another. Some speech is meant to challenge certain perspectives or to make others think about their actions. But trying to remove the right of expression because you don't agree with an expression is wrong.
(And here I need to clarify that this isn't what I think is happening in the case of WOTC vs. Nielsen - as I said, I believe they have the right to end the relationship just as she has the right to whatever she believes. The above comment is just a reflection of the more general conversation on perspective and expression.)

Quote from mikeyG »

How does this relate to Nielsen? Accountability is important if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about how tolerant our society is, and in her case accountability meant having her conduct questioned and losing a job when her weak response to that questioning (and a degree of continued questionable behavior) began eroding her brand.

I agree with all of this. Freedom of expression does not exempt one from the consequences. WOTC is within their rights to decide who or what they do not wish to be associated with. And people could have accepted that and moved on.

But, and finally bringing it back around to my initial post, does name-calling really add to the conversation? Is calling her a "throwback," a "Troglodyte," and "an awful person" with a "twisted little heart" part of rational argument? That is what I reacted to. I asked for people to behave civilly, and the first reply I got was a "justified" refusal to extend compassion to another human being because the "justified" individual believes that person is misguided.

That is the problem I see with cancel culture - it rarely seeks to build up, only to destroy. It looks to remove rather than to educate.

Quote from user_938036 »

Quote from WarMachinePrime »

So there is no current evidence then. I have to take her past deletions at face value as mistakes she made on her part and corrected them. Cancel culture continues sadly. Forgiveness seems to be character trait that much of society has lost.

How recent does it need to be? If it's just after the original racist tweets and what not was brought to light followed by her response. Then a year later(a year ago now) she donated art prints to a far-right conspiracy group. If you need more recent. Then all I can say is its probably a matter of time. People do on rare occasions change but when struck they usually hide rather than reflect.

I took a look at some of the stuff they claimed was "racist". One meme had some racist imagery on it (both sides) so I can agree there. Others were just conspiracy ramblings. As for the YouTube group I watched some of their material, didn't see anything racist on it. Again just conspiracy babble and a dislike for George Soros. Must have not seen this anti-Semitic material.

You do all know that this line of talk is going to get this thread locked right?