This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: Psychological Warfare. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
Intresting topic, there is so much truth in the previews for comedy movies previews.
The one thing i was curious about is when you talked about people not voicing their opinion for not liking Worldwake. May i ask your opinion to why its only a 6 outta 10?
The rares are pretty good. I don't think anybody in this set will scoff at too many of them. I find the commons most disappointing. Personally, I don't think commmons have to be great. They don't have to suck either. Repulse, Recoil, Horned Kavu, Goblin Legionaire, Faceless Butcher were all great commons.
Put it this way, take away all the rares and uncommons.
Would you still want to buy the set?
I wouldn't it. It is my personal belief commons and uncommons have a larger impact than rares on the appeal of a set. I believe it is one of the reasons the Invasion block was so appealing. Apocalypse was full of good commons.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: Buttered Popcorn and Worldwake. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: The Trade-Off. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
Meyou- I am personally a fan of your writing, it is insightful and well crafted. I enjoyed this article, as a personal essay. Was a trading card game forum really the right place to publish an essay, however good, on the topics of emotionality and empathy? I know you tried to link it back to blue, but really, blue is not a whole person. None of the colors are.
Many of the magic pplayers I know read this article and were completely turned off. If I link some others I know, and change all instances of "blue" to "the logical-introspective personality type" then it'd get a much better response.
tl;dr: Choose your audiences better. There are plenty of sites that will publish good essays.
It is my intent with my articles is to come up with stuff we or other articles don't usually talk about and hopefully, make it somewhat entertaining. Getting along with other players is a part of this game many don't talk about. Maybe, for very good reasons. I think it is important and should be talked or about if not discussed in the forums. I thought the article would give those nonblue players out there a glimpse into a "blueish" mind and possibly take something away from it.
I understand my articles week from week won't be for everyone. It is a risk I have accepted with what my intended goal has been with my article writing. Next week, I am going to write about trading. Why? I've never really seen too many articles on the subject. Some will hate, some will like it. It is something I have just come to accept.
ive never even once considered, nor has the thought even crossed my mind, to associate the blue mage with autism. maybe because autism spectrum disorders just dont play well into jokes, or maybe because its im a psychologist and know just how disabling a disorder it is. regardless, i stopped reading after that little quip. next time try saying the blue mage is anal retentive, it classifies them a bit better.
A couple of my cousins have autism. I've worked with people with autism. I fully understand how disabiling it can be.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: The Heart of a Tin Man. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
This article had some useful information & touched on some interesting points, but I was pretty surprised at the horrible grammar throughout the entire text. Do these articles not go through a proofreading process by someone other than the author before posting? There weren't just one or two mistakes, either. Bad, lazy grammar was used at least several times in each paragraph, often making portions of the article nearly unintelligible. No one's perfect (I certainly am not), but there is no way that this article was given even the most perfunctory of proofreads. For a website with so many readers & members as Sally, I'd expect a bit more professionalism.
/grammar rant :-D
The mtgsalvation articles are written by unpaid writers and editors. We do it for the love of the game. This also includes moderators and other staff. If anyone feels they can have a positive impact, please feel free to offer your services. We do the best with what we have and who we have at our disposal. People who are willing to give up time for their expertise and insight are always welcome.
As for the grammar, feel free to point out certain examples. I used to hate writing and I am now making up for lost time. As such, I do pay attention to valid points made. It helps. It is much better when I get explanations to reasons behind them.
As such, I am glad you at least found some of it interesting regardless of the bad grammar.
@ Jiggy. Not a problem. Proof that I shouldn't write a retort during the late hours of the night.
A quick blurb: I don't know where this cheating and stacking thing is coming from since I am whole-heartedly promoting shuffling followed by more shuffling. The more shuffling in my mind the better. Shuffling randomizes decks.
If people want to argue the point randomizing doesn't necessarily result in better draws, I can participate in that discussion.
If you are properly randomizing your deck while you shuffle, then shuffling more is not going to make you mulligan less. If you are not properly randomizing your deck while you shuffle, then you are cheating.
A completely randomized deck of 40 spells and 20 lands should produce 2.3 lands in a starting seven on average. Randomization revolves around a mean and standards of deviation. A deck that isn't completely randomized will have junks of land and spells. This produces weird draws outside the standards of deviation. Complete randomization statistically produces betters draws. Decks not shuffled properly will deviate more from the mean.
In essence, randomized decks produce better draws on average.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: A Short Guide to Mulliganing. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: Magic Five Spice. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: An Off-the-Cuff Judge Interview. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: Stolen Lemonade. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
A tie between Utopia Tree and Urza's Rage . They were the first rares that I opened from the booster packs my wife gave while in the hospital. It doesn't hurt they have some great artwork. They will always have a soft spot in my heart.
The rares are pretty good. I don't think anybody in this set will scoff at too many of them. I find the commons most disappointing. Personally, I don't think commmons have to be great. They don't have to suck either. Repulse, Recoil, Horned Kavu, Goblin Legionaire, Faceless Butcher were all great commons.
Put it this way, take away all the rares and uncommons.
Would you still want to buy the set?
I wouldn't it. It is my personal belief commons and uncommons have a larger impact than rares on the appeal of a set. I believe it is one of the reasons the Invasion block was so appealing. Apocalypse was full of good commons.
It is my intent with my articles is to come up with stuff we or other articles don't usually talk about and hopefully, make it somewhat entertaining. Getting along with other players is a part of this game many don't talk about. Maybe, for very good reasons. I think it is important and should be talked or about if not discussed in the forums. I thought the article would give those nonblue players out there a glimpse into a "blueish" mind and possibly take something away from it.
I understand my articles week from week won't be for everyone. It is a risk I have accepted with what my intended goal has been with my article writing. Next week, I am going to write about trading. Why? I've never really seen too many articles on the subject. Some will hate, some will like it. It is something I have just come to accept.
A couple of my cousins have autism. I've worked with people with autism. I fully understand how disabiling it can be.
The mtgsalvation articles are written by unpaid writers and editors. We do it for the love of the game. This also includes moderators and other staff. If anyone feels they can have a positive impact, please feel free to offer your services. We do the best with what we have and who we have at our disposal. People who are willing to give up time for their expertise and insight are always welcome.
As for the grammar, feel free to point out certain examples. I used to hate writing and I am now making up for lost time. As such, I do pay attention to valid points made. It helps. It is much better when I get explanations to reasons behind them.
As such, I am glad you at least found some of it interesting regardless of the bad grammar.
A quick blurb: I don't know where this cheating and stacking thing is coming from since I am whole-heartedly promoting shuffling followed by more shuffling. The more shuffling in my mind the better. Shuffling randomizes decks.
If people want to argue the point randomizing doesn't necessarily result in better draws, I can participate in that discussion.
A completely randomized deck of 40 spells and 20 lands should produce 2.3 lands in a starting seven on average. Randomization revolves around a mean and standards of deviation. A deck that isn't completely randomized will have junks of land and spells. This produces weird draws outside the standards of deviation. Complete randomization statistically produces betters draws. Decks not shuffled properly will deviate more from the mean.
In essence, randomized decks produce better draws on average.
I am talking about where to find your pairings at a big event. For myself, I went over to the sign that said F - H to find my next opponent.