The fine folks on these forums built an Isperia deck for me, and it was some fun. My style is more forward, aggressive, and active, so there were times that I would get impatient with it, but it sure did some big, splashy stuff. Any deck with Storm Herd in it gets thumbs up from me. Maybe I'll drag it out for one week of Armada's League 9.
Sorry but the way i see it is if you had no intention of of using his full name, then there is no way it could have got in the article...if you wrote it in at some point than you at least thought about using it, even if you intended to take it out...sorry but it seems like you are doing some serious backpedaling here...just sayn
I wasn't going to try to explain, but it's habit with this particular person, since we don't refer to him at the shop by his first name alone, but by both names, as if they were one. Since I often try to write in a more the-way-we-talk style, that's how it happened. No backpedaling, just an honest mistake and result of my own poor editing.
A lot of E-warriors coming out of the woodwork after Sheldon posted. He said he made a mistake with the persons name. And that he tone was off in writing. And stated his position after 10 pages of people more or less attacking him. I respect him for that if nothing else.
Running him off these forums does little to help anyone. I am just happy to know he lurks around here reading peoples thoughts on the format, rules, play styles.
Thanks for saying so. We as human beings make tactical mistakes, we make technical mistakes, and we make errors in judgment. I'm not immune any of them. I'm going to have my opinions, and hopefully I can state them in a way that sways as many people as possible in my direction.
As a long-standing reader of your column, I feel that I have to address this, because your response doesn't seem to grasp the real issue. There's a huge difference between calling someone a dick, and saying that something that they did was "dickish". I have no qualms with you calling someone out when you feel you should; that's not what's up for debate.
What I am concerned about, is the fact that you painted a person in a certain light, and you did so in a way that eliminated that person's anonymity, in a very public way. The mistake you made was not protecting that person's identity while calling them out. If I were to play a game with you at this point, I feel that I would have to eschew having fun, in order to be careful not to step on anyone's toes. I would not want to have my name put in an article that hundreds of people read calling me a "funwrecker".
That's where I take issue. Correct that, and I feel you'll go a long way to making your column more enjoyable and approachable.
Here, I was flat out wrong. I had no intention of using his full name, and it crept in nonetheless, and it was my (and only my) mistake to let it happen. I'm fine with calling attention to undesirable behavior, but have no need to be petty about it. A friend just mentioned to me that he felt the tone of the article was very angry, which then is my failing as an author. I meant to convey some frustration and some distaste, and it seems as though I missed the mark.
I think I might have answered over at SCG most of the concerns that folks have brought up.
I'm not so much anti-combo as I am anti-lock and anti-grief. I'm not against playing hard, playing to win, or playing good decks. Guys like David and Jeff, who've been featured in many of the recent League 8 reports, have done a good job in my opinion of striking what I think is the right balance--playing to win, while not completely taking away other players' opportunity to do so too.
I thought someone did something dickish, and I took the opportunity to say what was on my mind. If you think that I'm dickish for doing so, I fully support your right to say so.
I'm not even going to say someone is wrong for disagreeing with my vision for the format, because there's no morality here. I have the good fortune to be in a position to try to shape things a certain direction, and I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone agrees or agrees with my methods. I can't even say "I hope you realize I'm doing what I see as the right thing" because in addition to the good guys saying that, plenty of tyrants and despots have said it too.
In the end, I have to try to articulate the vision that I've had, and while it's not my preferred state of affairs, if some folks dislike it or me because of it, I'll take the hit.
The whole purpose of the product release done the way it was was so that WotC wouldn't have to manage the format. I have received repeated assurances that they have no interest in 'taking over' or sanctioning it. I have no reason to suspect that they won't honor that. I can see some variation on a theme of sanctioning as Casual-Unrated to be able to track/reward and give incentives to people who play in WPN locations, but I'm relatively sure we're a long way from seeing it as a competetive format.
Keep up the good work. Remember that the online community is just a small but more vocal portion of the over all player base. Got a link to your article about the changes, assuming it is up yet?
No it's better than that, it sets the precedent that whining will sway the RC period.
So what you're saying here is that not listening to what the community has to say and listening to the community are both bad.
To characterise an argument or stance on an issue as 'whining' is a simple dissmissive, but it's certainly not a valid counter-argument, it's just a different kind of whining.
What the community has to say doesn't make the decisions, it's a starting point for our deliberations. If I individually thought Emrakul was the worst card ever for the format but never heard anything from anyone else, then it wouldn't be banned. In this case, the voices in the community coincided with the RC's experiences, and we made a decision based on the long-term health of the format.
Just to note, Emrakul was NOT banned for power reasons - he was banned for being format warping and unfun to play against. This is Sheldon's exact reasoning, so can we stop saying "he's really not that good?" It really doesn't matter how good he is - bottom line is if anyone includes him in a deck, the game will revolve around him, either through accelling him out quickly or using Bribery to snag him up.
Correct. It was the devolution of games that was the tipping point. Read more about it tomorrow in my article on SCG.
I don't think that Memnarch is going to prove to be all that dangerous in the post-Academy world. Sure, he might be good, but you see him coming from a million miles away. If you're running mono-blue just to be a griefer, then he's not your best choice.
They brought me in on this project early on, and I can honestly say that I'm very happy with the direction it's taken. The format will stay in the hands of the people that love it while getting support from, well, more people that love it. It's win-win for us.
Agonizing Demise Kicked for Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer with 30 lands in play guy.
Backlash or Delirium for Blightsteel Colossus.
Lord of Extinction nearly any time.
Doesn't matter whether I'm on the good or bad end, if it's something that makes the whole table roar, then I'm all for it.
I wasn't going to try to explain, but it's habit with this particular person, since we don't refer to him at the shop by his first name alone, but by both names, as if they were one. Since I often try to write in a more the-way-we-talk style, that's how it happened. No backpedaling, just an honest mistake and result of my own poor editing.
Thanks for saying so. We as human beings make tactical mistakes, we make technical mistakes, and we make errors in judgment. I'm not immune any of them. I'm going to have my opinions, and hopefully I can state them in a way that sways as many people as possible in my direction.
Here, I was flat out wrong. I had no intention of using his full name, and it crept in nonetheless, and it was my (and only my) mistake to let it happen. I'm fine with calling attention to undesirable behavior, but have no need to be petty about it. A friend just mentioned to me that he felt the tone of the article was very angry, which then is my failing as an author. I meant to convey some frustration and some distaste, and it seems as though I missed the mark.
I'm not so much anti-combo as I am anti-lock and anti-grief. I'm not against playing hard, playing to win, or playing good decks. Guys like David and Jeff, who've been featured in many of the recent League 8 reports, have done a good job in my opinion of striking what I think is the right balance--playing to win, while not completely taking away other players' opportunity to do so too.
I thought someone did something dickish, and I took the opportunity to say what was on my mind. If you think that I'm dickish for doing so, I fully support your right to say so.
I'm not even going to say someone is wrong for disagreeing with my vision for the format, because there's no morality here. I have the good fortune to be in a position to try to shape things a certain direction, and I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone agrees or agrees with my methods. I can't even say "I hope you realize I'm doing what I see as the right thing" because in addition to the good guys saying that, plenty of tyrants and despots have said it too.
In the end, I have to try to articulate the vision that I've had, and while it's not my preferred state of affairs, if some folks dislike it or me because of it, I'll take the hit.
I'd love to hear who the 'reliable source' is.
Thanks for saying so. Here goes:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/multiplayer/20743_Embracing_The_Chaos_December_20_Announcements.html
So what you're saying here is that not listening to what the community has to say and listening to the community are both bad.
To characterise an argument or stance on an issue as 'whining' is a simple dissmissive, but it's certainly not a valid counter-argument, it's just a different kind of whining.
What the community has to say doesn't make the decisions, it's a starting point for our deliberations. If I individually thought Emrakul was the worst card ever for the format but never heard anything from anyone else, then it wouldn't be banned. In this case, the voices in the community coincided with the RC's experiences, and we made a decision based on the long-term health of the format.
Correct. It was the devolution of games that was the tipping point. Read more about it tomorrow in my article on SCG.
They brought me in on this project early on, and I can honestly say that I'm very happy with the direction it's taken. The format will stay in the hands of the people that love it while getting support from, well, more people that love it. It's win-win for us.
Sheldon
I support this message.