"someone (Jeremy) had the audacity to criticize someone (Christine)and Criticism is Not Harassment no matter how some people wish to construe it as such."
Jeremy went far beyond objective criticism and publicly persecuted Christine for nearly a year. He may not have personally hounded her with hateful private messages, but his actions directly resulted in months of direct online harassment from his fan base. You can't seriously look at all the crap Jeremy said and not call it harassment. When you hold that much influence over such a large congregation of people, you have a basic responsibility to not give them the idea that these sorts of heinous actions are socially acceptable. He could have easily criticized Christine without his plethora of disparaging personal remarks against her, and without encouraging thousands of his followers to constantly flame her. The fact that he did do these things, and unapologetically so, is what makes it harassment.
"The protests, mobs, riots all a sign that someone is incapable of accepting the opinion of others."
You mean accepting the opinion that bullying, harassing, and dehumanizing innocent human beings is okay? Yeah no, that sort of mentality has no place in our society, and entertaining that line of thinking will only hold us back as a species.
"someone who disagreed with the Nazi party during there rain ended up at best in a concentration camp at worst with a bullet in there head."
If you think the experience of a Nazi concentration camp is the best case scenario compared to a quick and painless death, then I can't even fathom how detached you are from reality. I encourage you to quantum-leap into the body of an emaciated Jewish concentration camp prisoner circa 1944 and ask yourself, "Is this better than not suffering at all?"
"but the moment you stop respecting the opinion of others and start attacking, harassing them, posting there personal info and calling for a public lynching joust because thy sad something you don't agree with, that is the point I stop respecting you, that is the point you have become a Nazi"
Is that not exactly what Jeremy did?
"people can not differentiate between Nazi and centre right"
Actually, as the years have progressed, our Overton Window has been shifting steadily to the right. Democratic socialism (a mild leftist ideology) has become regarded as far-left, and centrism has become regarded as center-left. On the other side, traditional conservatism has shifted to the center of America's political spectrum, with semi-fascist ideologies occupying the moderate- to far-right.
In other words, the more that neo-Nazi ideologies become normalized and accepted as a valid political platform, the closer the center right drifts toward Nazism.
I don't call right-thinkers Nazis. I call Nazis Nazis. I know a lot of Trump voters with opinions that I strongly disagree with, and I don't call them Nazis because they're not Nazis. They don't believe in things like a one-party government or ethnic cleansing or the removal of basic human rights (except maybe health care, but that's an entirely different can of worms), so I can't in good conscience call them Nazis.
Do I think Jeremy is a Nazi? Not at the moment, because he hasn't shown me any reason to think he's a Nazi. But I do think he's a scumbag with a startling lack of empathy for other humans, and that his career as a psychologically abusive and hate-mongering content creator should be completely and utterly destroyed.
I love this one!
To me, Johnny would be more inclined to say...
"Well, we'd get going at 6:00 PM sharp and go for a stroll through the park while we get to know each other, then at 6:45 we would go for a quiet bike ride through the hills... After that, we would dine at the finest restaurant at 7:30, then go for a boat ride on the lake to watch the gorgeous sunset at 8:30. Ooh, and then we would go see a movie! And then...
It'll be difficult to pull off, but if all the pieces come together, it'll be perfect!"
And Spike would either say...
"I would spend as much time and money as necessary to ensure that the date runs as efficiently and perfectly as possible.
And if it doesn't, then I'll keep dating other people until I achieve the optimum date experience."
or
"Oh, I can't be bothered with frivolous activities like dating. I have a PTQ coming up."
Thinking way outside the box here, it is possible that the plane of Innistrad is a setting where the humans had been a dogmatic regime centuries prior that sought the genocide of all other tribes. In such a situation, the ire of the nocturnal creatures could have been conditioned and begotten by the humans, and would be self-defense at its mildest (yet would also be vengeful retribution after the disappearance of Avacyn).
It is definitely interesting to think of a nontraditional scenario such as this, where white is actually the source of evil rather than the source of good. If not here, I would love to see this concept applied in a future block.
As it turns out, this hypothesis also complies with the "Horrors Lurk Within" motif because, if true, it means that underneath the human civilization's frightened-yet-faithful exterior lies malice.
You mean this Reprisal?
EDIT: Nath'd!
I understand that that would be the easiest solution, but it seems a bit counterintuitive to include a card that discourages physically keeping cards in the graveyard in a block that is supposedly graveyard-based. Such a card could lead to many confusing and misinterpreted situations, especially ones involving flashback and threshold.
And don't even get me started about games in Eternal formats that require keeping track of the specific graveyard order. In that situation, players would have to choose between making a mental note of each "until end of turn" effect on each permanent, or memorizing the order in which each of those "until end of turn" effects were introduced.
"Okay, I'll block your Gladecover Scout with my Amphin Cutthroat."
"Alright, your guy dies."
"What? No it doesn't."
"Yeah, I played Giant Growth on my Scout a few turns ago, remember?"
"I thought you played that on your Giant Spider."
"No no, that was a different Giant Growth. I played that one before Staying Power was on the board."
"Ah, okay."
"Oh, what about my 3/3 Beast token? Do you block that?"
"Huh? Oh no, I'll take 3."
"Sweet, I draw three cards."
"Wait, what?"
"I played Hunter's Insight on it last turn."
"Right, right."
I can only see it happening if the events of the Innistrad block indirectly cause vampires and werewolves to infringe upon each others' territories. As far as we know right now, most vampires and werewolves live in completely different provinces, so their interactions with each other are quite limited.
Also, the seasons would make most of their skirmishes fairly lopsided. The vampires would easily prevail during Harvest Moon, and the werewolves would likely triumph during Hunter's Moon. So unless their feud takes place during the New Moon, I fear that it would be pretty unexciting.
Now, if the structure of the block is
Innistrad - Harvest Moon
Dark Ascension - Hunter's Moon
"Roll" - New Moon,
then a vampire-werewolf clash would make the most sense in the third set, when they're on a level playing field (season-wise).
Of course, the main events of the block would probably supersede this subtheme, but I suppose it could still be fit into the set.
Contrarily, we could also speculate about how the flavor presented in the articles is going to inspire the cards.
I accidentally discovered this combo one day. It might not be as great as the other combos listed here, but I love it.
I'm no judge, and I'm not saying that this is the correct course of action according to the DCI, but I think it would be best if the two of you were to begin the match anew.
As for the actual in-game situation, again it comes down to an "official" decision versus a "socially appropriate" one. Seeing as how EDH is a casual format, rewinding the game and allowing Commons to pay the 1 would be acceptable. But on the other hand, since this situation is occurring in a tournament, actions are considered absolute.
Given this contradiction, it's difficult to come to a definitive conclusion. Ultimately, it is all dependent on fzian's decision of which mindset supersedes the other.
Personally, as a lenient player, I would let Commons go back and pay the 1. But as a judge... I'm not sure.
While I agree that Fanatic is good, I'd rather try out the Maniac for the time being and see how it plays out.
Pros of Maniac:
-Can get more damage through
-Trades with bigger guys
Pros of Fanatic:
-Can pick off an annoying utility creature
-Can help one of your guys trade with a troublesome dude
-Can dome your opponent later on when you can't get creatures through for the final few points of damage
-Essentially doesn't die without doing something
While Fanatic has more advantages, I feel that Maniac's advantages will present themselves on a more regular basis in a build like this, although I can't yet say so for certain.
I could also try both, by cutting Boggart Ram-Gang or something?
And yeah, there's no way I'm going to fit Siege-Gang Commander in a Sligh build like this.
Blasting Station can be considered as well.
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work unless you're referring to blink effects such as Otherworldly Journey and Mistmeadow Witch, rather than Momentary Blink.
(And even so, you couldn't target Progenitus with a blink effect anyway.)
Ahaha, that's what I get for making suggestions without properly reading the card first.
Thanks for the correction, you guys.
I suppose it doesn't matter since the tokens were wiped out soon afterward, but wouldn't it be wiser to search for Avenger of Zendikar in response to Primeval Titan's trigger so all of your Plants can get +2/+2?