Quote from Spectre_06 »So once again, I'm asking for the proof of this longstanding, concerted campaign of harassment specifically against Christine.
Followed by the following Mod Note:
Public Mod Note (Wildfire393): Warning for trolling - The Professor's videos have been linked and other sources provided. At this point, it's on you to actually follow the research provided. Continued stubbornness does not equal a counterargument.
One of the ground rules in the first post in the thread was:
"While many of the videos and tweets leading up to this were deleted, this is not the place to debate whether or not this actually happened."
First of all, I agree with the sentiment that harassment is not okay and there isn't really a "harassment is okay" side of hearing things out. I whole-heartedly agree with that. Harassment, bullying, cyber-bullying are things that we as a community should not condone.
With that being said, I'm very much out-of-the-loop when it comes to this topic. I wish to be more informed so I can have my own opinion on this issue, much like many other people within the community who are just as concerned as I am.
However, I must say that the moderation of this thread is kind of pushing people towards a specific conclusion. Anything that threatens to challenge said conclusion are met with red texts of warnings and infractions. I feel that the moderation in this thread is kind of hindering people from trying to become more informed, so we could form their own opinion on the matter. Particularly in the example above.
I'm very much against harassment and bullying, but I'm also against jumping to a conclusion when the facts are not laid bare in front of me. And when someone is warned for "trolling" for asking for those facts, that just doesn't sit right with me.
I'm not "defending the harasser" and I'm not "debating whether or not this actually happened". I just want to know exactly what happened. When, where, and in what way was Christine Sprankle being harassed?
I've done as much research as I could, but as mentioned in the ground rules, many of the alleged harassment examples were deleted. The "sources provided" are simply people's reactions to this alleged harassment, not examples of the harassment itself. Maybe I'm just bad at the internet or I arrived too late to the party, but I can't find this "mountain of easily available evidence of harassment". Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with asking for examples. I don't understand why the above poster was modded. Why don't we just post the examples in the OP or anywhere in this thread?
I don't think it's fair that the person asking for proof of harassment was "warned for trolling" when he was simply searching for the truth, just as I am. As someone out of the loop, it just feels fishy when we're not allowed to question whether or not harassment took place, we are only allowed to discuss this topic under the premise that the harassment DID take place, but we're also not allowed to request examples of the alleged harassment. Does this not seem fishy to you? It's as if to say "take our side in this argument or get an infraction".
I hope I don't get modded for this but, can anyone provide specific context of this alleged harassment, to help me and people like me form our own opinion on the matter?
Thank you.
1
If I sold everything now I might have netted money from playing magic. Crazy to think.
1
-+3/+3 is a far cry from +x/+x
-not trample is a far cry from trample
-needing same type creatures is a far cry from not needing that
-attack triggers are a far cry from Etbs
-dying to any sac outlet or bad attacks on enemy turns is a far cry from not
-getting killed by your own commander is a far cry from not
That or you misspelled jazal goldmane.
3
Anyway, high tide is a boring combo card and I don't like it.
2
Agreed, I think it's all a matter of context. Ideally you've got the best defenses by a nose, but significantly less offensive power, in order to win the "least likely to be attacked" award. Keeping yourself in the right position in these regards is a key part of smart politics imo.
Well it was all I could make (I played liliana's influence), if I could have made more I would have. At that point I assumed I'd be the biggest threat, but in a way that would make it very difficult to mess with me profitably. Which was true, but it didn't stop people from doing it. So yes, more snakes would definitely have been better at that point since I was already the threat. Possibly fewer snakes would also have been better to avoid making me the threat, although idk how many fewer would have been necessary. Hard to be sure. I think I also have a bit of a rep for winning frequently, even if I don't play anything frowned upon. So that also makes it more likely I'll attract ire.
Oooh, these are really good observations. You've put them into words very nicely. The valley metaphor is uncannily apt (:P), so now I'm going to abuse the hell out of it.
Generally I think once you're in the valley, most likely you're going to get dragged out of it by the table ganging up on you. Most of the time, if you're able to make it to the other side of the valley, it's because you jumped straight over it with some burst of power - a combo, a strong synergy, or maybe just one particularly nasty bomb, most often. If you're legitimately at the nadir of the valley I think you've usually got a hard time getting up the far side. Maybe you can tiptoe up to the edge of the valley and then jump over before people are paying too much attention, but to make it from the nadir back up I think is very hard, because from the nadir onwards everyone is ganging up on you. If you do make it out, I think most of the time it's because you weren't really at the nadir at all, but some ways up the far side.
Part of why I like to play how I play is because it appeals to what I think feel like "earned wins". I used to play, for example, my child of alara deck. It started wiping the board around turn 4-5 and basically just does it every turn until the game is over, and it's pretty hard to dismantle since it has tons of recursion and protection built in. And it was kind of fun for a little while, but pretty quickly it got boring because my group just wasn't really capable of beating it. I made it to the far side of the valley, but it wasn't very satisfying. I think the same thing about making most combo decks. If you're playing it well against an average LGS commander group, I think it's almost trivial to win. In a cEDH group ofc it isn't, but most LGS players won't have answers, and if they do they won't have many and they probably won't leave them up at the critical time, especially if they haven't seen the deck before.
Maybe a better example is something value-oriented, like maelstrom wanderer. When I played maelstrom wanderer I was usually archenemy from around turn 3-4 and never really stopped being so, and I still usually won. At that point it seems like I won just because my cards/deck was so much better(my collection contributes a lot to this, ofc), not because of any skill. In medium-powered commander I think it's pretty easy to make it up the far side of the valley with either a powerful deck or something that jumps you over quickly, but if that's your only objective then I don't think that's an interesting goal for exactly that reason. So instead, I like to focus on how to win without ever feeling unfair or overpowered, but trying to find ways to win that rely as much as possible on skill, and as little as possible on having better cards. Usually this means it's very advantageous to stay on the near side of the valley for as long as possible, since I lack cards and combos that can easily catapult me over to the other side.
Of course I realize that isn't necessarily how much people like to play, but everyone who isn't playing cEDH has to draw their own line in the sand for how they're going to limit their deckbuilding.
3
I DON'T LIKE FOIL, WOTC.
2
4
1
2
5