It's the difference between left brain and right brain. Some people are amazing rules lawyers but are poor at card evaluation and couldn't brew a competitive deck if their life depended on it. I'm an excellent brewer but a mediocre player which is why I prefer limited/cube. It's also why I play online versus live. Being online just makes it so much easier to play because the interface handles the various steps.
It is not the difference between the left and right brain, and those who are good brewers are also good players and vice versa (almost always, more than 90 percent). It is easy to understand why it is so.
Not really but it depends on what you mean by "good". Even among pros there are brewers and players. Conley Woods and Patrick Chapin are known as excellent brewers but they haven't won as much as some other players because their play isn't quite as tight. Reid Duke is not known as a brewer but is a very tight player. So yeah the good brewers are good players and vice-versa. Pros are known to be either limited experts or standard experts. The limited experts tend to be left brain thinkers who can look at the big picture, think creatively, and come up with a great deck at the spur of the moment. The standard experts are players who put in the work, fine tuning and tweaking their 75, with very tight play come tournament time. I.e. left brain thinkers.
It's the difference between left brain and right brain. Some people are amazing rules lawyers but are poor at card evaluation and couldn't brew a competitive deck if their life depended on it. I'm an excellent brewer but a mediocre player which is why I prefer limited/cube. It's also why I play online versus live. Being online just makes it so much easier to play because the interface handles the various steps.
"All Of You are acceptable candidates into Star Fleet, but we can only take one of you" lol...That pretty much sums it up doesn't it? That's why there needs to objective criterion otherwise people are just going to bicker over their feelings.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
I would argue that core values are those things which you believe to be most important. Belief, in this case, being something you have been convinced is true, whether you were convinced for good reasons or bad reasons. Under those terms, someone's core values could be based on emotions, but that is not necessarily the case.
I agree with this. Value could be either emotional or not emotional.
FWIW I'm not trying to be an ignorant racist/sexist. My wife is a black female and she appreciated the announcement. Happy wife, happy life. Putting Tubman on the bill is not something I disagree with.
Harriet Tubman did a lot for a lot of slaves. I just think there needs to be some clear objective criterion for who appears on our money. In objective terms, looking at sheer numbers I think someone like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did more to free the slaves than Tubman. If the Maine 20th doesn't defend that little hill, the Union loses Gettysburg. They lose Gettysburg and maybe the Union doesn't win the war. They didn't win too many battles to that point, maybe they could have still won through attrition, idk. He didn't have to do that. He was a professor who volunteered. He could have retreated from little round top. But he stood his ground. Tubman might have emotional resonance for some people but Chamberlain resonates with me.
I think people are looking at it why am I so petty that I don't want her on the bill? First of all, I don't oppose her being on the bill. Secondly, there are a lot of people who deserve to be on the bill. I could just reverse the logic, why are you so petty that Chamberlain isn't on the bill? The fact of the matter is that there are so many noteworthy people in history that it is impossible to have them all on money, so we need to be careful why we put someone on the bill, and if it's important then there should be objective criterion at least to the extent it is possible to be objective.
All I'm saying is that I want someone from the government to explain why she was selected without resorting to an appeal to emotion.
Anything along the lines of "core values during a specific time period" is a synonym.
A synonym of what?
Whose core values? Define value without an appeal to emotion.
I'm not sure what you think "appeal to emotion" means, but your usage here doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not sure what you're asking me to avoid.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
Harriet Tubman's core values for her time period. Slavery is bad and she was willing to risk great personal danger to practically abduct slaves and guide them North to freedom.
So if you're stating that the core value here is people that did a lot to end slavery and were brave why not any random Union soldier? Why not Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? He risked great personal danger. If the Maine 20th don't hold at Little Round Top, the Union doesn't win that battle. Practically speaking, he did more to advance the cause of freedom. The reason why Tubman was selected is because she is a figure who resonates with a lot of people, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of ma feelz, just stated in a less condescending way.
And this is precisely the sort of discussion we should be having. I don't oppose Tubman being on the bill, I just think there needs to be more rationale behind the decision other than ma feelz. If we're going to start putting great humanitarians on our money, then state as such. If it's former Presidents then state that. Founding fathers then state that. Some rational needs to be behind it.
"A review of historical design process documents shows that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which develops and produces U.S. currency notes, has relied on a series of concepts which capture the core values of the United States during a specific time period."
Or, you know, maybe it's just "ma feelz".[/quote]
Anything along the lines of "core values during a specific time period" is a synonym. Whose core values? Define value without an appeal to emotion.
Maybe this isn't what you were looking for but Mystical Teachings. It has the potential for a nigh unbeatable draw engine if the games go long enough. A teachings deck can be built almost entirely with commons and uncommons. Along those lines Pearl Lake Ancient is a pretty good budget finisher with inevitability in that deck. Empty the Pits is surprisingly good. The deck will naturally have 10 cards in the graveyard by the late game. So it's basically 5ish 2/2s at instant speed for bbbb. Scatter to the Winds is a pretty decent card. We've had counter-creatures before but the advantage of this one is that it can always be cast for 1uu meaning it's better in the early game than previous options. You could build a teachings deck for under $20 (outside the mana base) and have a winning record with it.
Necrotic Ooze is a really strong card and can create infinite engines with a lot of different combos.
I had a Necrotic Ooze deck in extended during the faeries reign. I still have the shell built but it seems like it would be much too slow for competitive modern. Jund is a better GBx attrition deck and the combo isn't fast or resilient enough to make the rest of the deck viable.
Maybe there are some modern legal cards that give it an edge or take it in another direction. I'd be interested to see what they are.
You're probably not going to find a card that is just going to break open the format at this point. But Ooze can be good enough and as it's typically run as a combo deck, combo decks have the inherent ability to just win if your opponent doesn't have the correct answers.
Another card I thought of is Plow Under. I've been running it along with an aggressive monogreen elves build. You typically have the mana to cast it turn 3. If you ever cast it turn 3 on the play against an opponent with nothing on the board it's like two time walks.
Basically an elf deck that doesn't run CoCo and Chord, which are expensive, in favor of more consistency, lords, and Plow Under. Oran-rief is really good if you can abuse in the turn you go off with Heritage Druid.
Is it competitive?
The mana elves plus the lords keep up with aggressive lists. Plow Under has the potential to wreck midrange/control. Plow Under dodges Inquisition of Kolizek so it's pretty easy to resolve against Jund and wreck their manabase. Control is generally ill-suited to dealing with the deck because they run things such as Spell Snare which has no legal targets. Path to Exile just ramps us to Plow Under. The deck is pretty easy to dismantle in theory but in practice most opponent's don't have the correct answers for it and it's pretty good.
The way that the secondary market works is that the "best cards" have very high demand while the second best cards have very low demand. This is because everyone wants to play with the best decks. However, the second best cards may actually be viable, not much lower in power than the best cards. If you brew, you can develop a deck that you are intimately familiar with, and which your opponent may not be. So purely from a spike perspective you have to weigh the informational advantage against the power disadvantage. Sometimes you actually do gain more by having the information disparity in your favor. Of course, you have to be really good at designing decks to metagame this way. The problem is many people aren't good at brewing and what they think might be good enough really is garbage. They think they have a rogue tier 2 deck but they really have a pile. My basic philosophy is to netdeck but if I don't find something I like then I brew. If I've tested the best decks and haven't found something that clicks that's evidence to me at least that the format is ripe for brewing. What I will not do is bring a deck I know is worse than a similar version of a netdeck.
Maybe this isn't what you were looking for but Mystical Teachings. It has the potential for a nigh unbeatable draw engine if the games go long enough. A teachings deck can be built almost entirely with commons and uncommons. Along those lines Pearl Lake Ancient is a pretty good budget finisher with inevitability in that deck. Empty the Pits is surprisingly good. The deck will naturally have 10 cards in the graveyard by the late game. So it's basically 5ish 2/2s at instant speed for bbbb. Scatter to the Winds is a pretty decent card. We've had counter-creatures before but the advantage of this one is that it can always be cast for 1uu meaning it's better in the early game than previous options. You could build a teachings deck for under $20 (outside the mana base) and have a winning record with it.
Necrotic Ooze is a really strong card and can create infinite engines with a lot of different combos.
I have to side with Highroller on this one. In theory if you raise the minimum wage then it could result in job loss. In reality I've worked long enough with big organizations to know this isn't how it actually works, at least not all of the time. Staff is based on (not always effective or logical) studies to determine minimum operational levels.
According to the theory of some people, and I'm using these numbers for simplicity sake, if I had 1500 workers making $10 each then if I raised the minimum wage to $1500 then it stands to reason I would then only employ 1000 workers. In reality, organizations have other operational costs that aren't tied to payroll, and most employees aren't minimum wage workers anyway. Companies do all sorts of studies to figure out how many people they need working for them.
My suspicion is that Berkeley knew they were too fat and wanted to lean up. Rather than just lay people off, which would be bad PR, they decided to also raise the min wage to deflect the blow of having to lay people off.
If you think about it, it cannot logically be any other way. If I employ 1500 people and I'm a competent CEO you have to assume I need 1500 people working for me. Otherwise, if I could operate on fewer people, say 1000, then I would have already made the cuts. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to force me to cut down to 1000 people if I need 1500 people to operate. Raising the minimum wage won't necessarily result in lost jobs, it could result in lost profit, but I also may be able to find the cuts elsewhere. But I'm not going to drop my staffing below safe levels just to save money, if that means I cannot operate.
I think the real obvious question is where do you want the game state to be on turn 5? If you're playing with or against a deck that wants to win around turn 5 then AV is basically unplayable because even if you suspend it turn 1 by the time you draw the cards, they may no longer be relevant. If you're playing a deck such as Teachings (not claiming it's the best deck to play in Modern) then almost regardless of when you draw AV it won't be a dead draw. If you're a deck that doesn't win until turn 10 then suspending it turn 3 with counter magic back up is still perfectly fine. Not many decks go that deep so I feel AV is a little hyped. You also have to take into consideration than AV provides no early game velocity. However, since I like to play decks where on turn 5 I'm still warming up, I think it's a good card for me. I think people are trying to jam it into too many midrange decks though.
I think it's good that Jackson was taken off the bill because there are a lot of people who did more for the formation of the nation than he did.
However, I also think that anyone on the bill should be associated with FORMING the nation. By forming of the nation, I mean around at the time of the founding fathers, and somehow associated with the American Revolution. Lincoln as a possible exception because he is so well known and served as President at a crucial time.
That being said, I would have liked a Thomas Paine/Paul Revere type figure. Or if a woman, perhaps Marry Ludwig Hays aka Molly Pitcher. I know the Molly Pitcher story has become a bit of a tall-tale, but I think that's what the currency should be about. Larger than life figures that formed the nation, whether their story is exaggerated or not.
That seems kind of arbitrary. Why people who founded the nation, and not people who helped shape it later?
The decision to use this rubric over any other is admittedly arbitrary. However, once this rubric is agreed to then the decisions are not arbitrary, in fact it provides an OBJECTIVE standard, which is the opposite of arbitrary. The system we have now is arbitrary.
The point is that we should have some sort of objective standard. If it's the most influential American from any time period, I'm ok with that, but then we're going to disagree on what is meant by influential. Also, if that were truly the standard then we would have people like Eli Whitney, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller on our money because those people did as much as any other to influence our nation. If that is the standard you would be forced to include even controversial historical figures because the weight of their influence is immense, for better or worse.
If we establish the standard that it should be reserved only for influential Presidents then FDR should for sure be on there.
My point is there needs to be an objective standard, which there isn't currently.
I think you'd still have disagreement of what constitutes influential within the proposed strata of "having had something to do with the formation of the nation". We'd only be having debates on whether Franklin was more important than Madison.
And this is precisely the sort of discussion we should be having. I don't oppose Tubman being on the bill, I just think there needs to be more rationale behind the decision other than ma feelz. If we're going to start putting great humanitarians on our money, then state as such. If it's former Presidents then state that. Founding fathers then state that. Some rational needs to be behind it.
They have the capability of filming one person draft, anyone can do that with a standard camera. But what I'm thinking is do a draft like the WPT does with poker. You get access to all 8 players hands simultaneously via a pocket cam installed at a draft table. That's the best way I can think of making it more interesting. Agreed that streaming may be more feasible.
An indictment isn't a conviction. But I agree that it's a gray area.
Yeah, of course, but if she's not convicted, she wouldn't be removed from office even if it were an impeachment, so we're assuming a conviction in this hypothetical.
I agree then. The way it was posed made it seem as if people thought mere indictment would be sufficient to ruin her Presidential chances. It obviously wouldn't help but it wouldn't slam the door completely. Now if she was convicted of something then clearly she's done. But I think we both agree it's somewhat unlikely at this point.
Not really but it depends on what you mean by "good". Even among pros there are brewers and players. Conley Woods and Patrick Chapin are known as excellent brewers but they haven't won as much as some other players because their play isn't quite as tight. Reid Duke is not known as a brewer but is a very tight player. So yeah the good brewers are good players and vice-versa. Pros are known to be either limited experts or standard experts. The limited experts tend to be left brain thinkers who can look at the big picture, think creatively, and come up with a great deck at the spur of the moment. The standard experts are players who put in the work, fine tuning and tweaking their 75, with very tight play come tournament time. I.e. left brain thinkers.
I agree with this. Value could be either emotional or not emotional.
FWIW I'm not trying to be an ignorant racist/sexist. My wife is a black female and she appreciated the announcement. Happy wife, happy life. Putting Tubman on the bill is not something I disagree with.
Harriet Tubman did a lot for a lot of slaves. I just think there needs to be some clear objective criterion for who appears on our money. In objective terms, looking at sheer numbers I think someone like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did more to free the slaves than Tubman. If the Maine 20th doesn't defend that little hill, the Union loses Gettysburg. They lose Gettysburg and maybe the Union doesn't win the war. They didn't win too many battles to that point, maybe they could have still won through attrition, idk. He didn't have to do that. He was a professor who volunteered. He could have retreated from little round top. But he stood his ground. Tubman might have emotional resonance for some people but Chamberlain resonates with me.
I think people are looking at it why am I so petty that I don't want her on the bill? First of all, I don't oppose her being on the bill. Secondly, there are a lot of people who deserve to be on the bill. I could just reverse the logic, why are you so petty that Chamberlain isn't on the bill? The fact of the matter is that there are so many noteworthy people in history that it is impossible to have them all on money, so we need to be careful why we put someone on the bill, and if it's important then there should be objective criterion at least to the extent it is possible to be objective.
All I'm saying is that I want someone from the government to explain why she was selected without resorting to an appeal to emotion.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
So if you're stating that the core value here is people that did a lot to end slavery and were brave why not any random Union soldier? Why not Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? He risked great personal danger. If the Maine 20th don't hold at Little Round Top, the Union doesn't win that battle. Practically speaking, he did more to advance the cause of freedom. The reason why Tubman was selected is because she is a figure who resonates with a lot of people, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of ma feelz, just stated in a less condescending way.
https://modernmoney.treasury.gov/currency/currency-theme
"A review of historical design process documents shows that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which develops and produces U.S. currency notes, has relied on a series of concepts which capture the core values of the United States during a specific time period."
Or, you know, maybe it's just "ma feelz".[/quote]
Anything along the lines of "core values during a specific time period" is a synonym. Whose core values? Define value without an appeal to emotion.
You're probably not going to find a card that is just going to break open the format at this point. But Ooze can be good enough and as it's typically run as a combo deck, combo decks have the inherent ability to just win if your opponent doesn't have the correct answers.
Another card I thought of is Plow Under. I've been running it along with an aggressive monogreen elves build. You typically have the mana to cast it turn 3. If you ever cast it turn 3 on the play against an opponent with nothing on the board it's like two time walks.
4 Elvish Mystic
4 Arbor Elf
4 Heritage Druid
4 Nettle Sentinel
4 Elvish Archdruid
4 Imperious Perfect
4 Elvish Champion
4 Joraga Warcaller
16 Forest
4 Oran-rief, the Vastwood
Basically an elf deck that doesn't run CoCo and Chord, which are expensive, in favor of more consistency, lords, and Plow Under. Oran-rief is really good if you can abuse in the turn you go off with Heritage Druid.
Is it competitive?
The mana elves plus the lords keep up with aggressive lists. Plow Under has the potential to wreck midrange/control. Plow Under dodges Inquisition of Kolizek so it's pretty easy to resolve against Jund and wreck their manabase. Control is generally ill-suited to dealing with the deck because they run things such as Spell Snare which has no legal targets. Path to Exile just ramps us to Plow Under. The deck is pretty easy to dismantle in theory but in practice most opponent's don't have the correct answers for it and it's pretty good.
Necrotic Ooze is a really strong card and can create infinite engines with a lot of different combos.
According to the theory of some people, and I'm using these numbers for simplicity sake, if I had 1500 workers making $10 each then if I raised the minimum wage to $1500 then it stands to reason I would then only employ 1000 workers. In reality, organizations have other operational costs that aren't tied to payroll, and most employees aren't minimum wage workers anyway. Companies do all sorts of studies to figure out how many people they need working for them.
My suspicion is that Berkeley knew they were too fat and wanted to lean up. Rather than just lay people off, which would be bad PR, they decided to also raise the min wage to deflect the blow of having to lay people off.
If you think about it, it cannot logically be any other way. If I employ 1500 people and I'm a competent CEO you have to assume I need 1500 people working for me. Otherwise, if I could operate on fewer people, say 1000, then I would have already made the cuts. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to force me to cut down to 1000 people if I need 1500 people to operate. Raising the minimum wage won't necessarily result in lost jobs, it could result in lost profit, but I also may be able to find the cuts elsewhere. But I'm not going to drop my staffing below safe levels just to save money, if that means I cannot operate.
And this is precisely the sort of discussion we should be having. I don't oppose Tubman being on the bill, I just think there needs to be more rationale behind the decision other than ma feelz. If we're going to start putting great humanitarians on our money, then state as such. If it's former Presidents then state that. Founding fathers then state that. Some rational needs to be behind it.
I agree then. The way it was posed made it seem as if people thought mere indictment would be sufficient to ruin her Presidential chances. It obviously wouldn't help but it wouldn't slam the door completely. Now if she was convicted of something then clearly she's done. But I think we both agree it's somewhat unlikely at this point.