Here is my ethical quandry. In the last round of a DTK draft my opponent is at 4 life with no other creatures. I have a 5/5 flyer. My opponent plays a Soul flyer that should have deathtouch and flying but doesn't because it's bugged. Should I continue to play and pretend it has flying and deathtouch or just attack for the win. I ended up attacking for the win and messaging my opponent with the information he needed to file a compensation request.
Also, Stormscape Apprentice from the list reminded me of the very old Tribal days, I'm pretty sure before the 2007 Grand Creature Update, where Wizards was a huge powerhouse tribe and Stormscape was a cornerstone. I think AJ used to play in those too, but I'm wondering if anyone else from the current roster of players was there back then.
Me; *complain about something*
Orc; there is nothing wrong
Me; it is, terms and agreement says so
Orc; no, code of conduct / terms of use do not say this (both linked)
Me; do you have a history of previous versions of Terms of Use ? how many times it has been changed... and what was changed...etc
Orc; We do not. That is our most up to date terms of use policy.
Me; ...
They can change stuff overnight(i guess ?) and we cannot see previous versions - is that even allowed ?
It pretty much leaves the user powerless...
Whenever I played against Tsabo's Decree it was very devastating. Discard clause is what makes the card so powerful, because you cannot play around it. And 6 mana is not that much for decks that play it. However, there are many far more powerful cards that are legal, so I definitely don't see the card as problematic.
If I had to redo this Thought Lash list, I would use Wizards over Humans (though still splashing for Containment Priest who is bonkers and for which I have tutors). I would cut the Alchemist's Apprentice copies, preferring the 1-drop Dakra Mystic. This helps support the 4th Meddling Mage too.
I tuned the deck for speed, but lost on consistency. Shield Sphere is fun for free extra mana from overgrown battlements, but it was often dead. It should have been Wall of Blossoms.
The cloudpost base is new, and it was added to support the crop rotation plan in cases where instant speed bojuka bog aren't needed. (not reanimator)
I also learned my lesson to split 2 Swords to Plowshares, 2 Path to exile to survive against meddling mage.
Also the metagame has shifted quite a bit since I played it last. It used to be dominated by goblins and elves. Now reanimator and combo are the kings of the hill.
Yes you do not understand and that is precisely the problem you are having. Also you have only taught me that "conversing" with you is futile. Weigh that in your arrogance pipe and see how it measures up with your expectations.
For example, I have managed to teach you that there have been different rules about concession and scouting in mtg before. That is good of me, and not just a yes no conversation.
Not many people manage to teach others on the internet !
The problem is if all you do is start arguments for the apparent sake of arguing you will end up with your comments unanswered instead of how we have been treating you so far.
There are other forms of persuasion than being directly antagonistic and confrontational. In fact you are much likely to get a true discussion going if you can manage to show acceptance when someone has a point that does not entirely jibe with your own world view (For example: "I see what you are saying: xyz." or "Yeah that might be true." or "I can see how you would feel that way." ... just sayin'...
Because being able to display that you are actively listening/reading enables the other person to reciprocate more easily. I am not saying you can't go about as you have been but after a while people may just write you off as a curmudgeon or worse.
1.3.3 Conceding Duels
Players may only concede a *duel* in order to maintain a strategic advantage within a *match*. Whenever players wish to concede, they must have the approval of the head judge. If players concede duels for any other reason, they will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI penalty guidelines.
C. Unsporting Conduct
...
The following behavior is automatically considered unsporting conduct:
-
-
-
-
- scouting other competitors' *decks*
- enlisting the aid of observers to scout other competitors' decks
-
-
Any competitor behaving in a belligerent, argumentative, hostile, or unsporting manner will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI PENALTY guidelines.
Never. The DCI has never had official rules stating that you could not concede. Not once. Except maybe in some store "house" rules.
Also there is literally no way to prove a charge of collusion between friends unless they admit to it or there is a witness. This is like complaining that laws are unfair because they can't ensure there will be no laws ever broken. Completely unrealistic.
AND despite the fact that the pro tour has a history of alleged cheaters being accused, very few actual pros I have known would stoop to that to win. Is there a bit of camaraderie between pros that might lead them to scoop to a friend or a teammate? Sure but friendship isn't bribery or collusion in a legal sense.
I agree that there should be more to a DQ process than speaking out of turn but it can't be too much more than that or there will be NO enforcement of the no bribery/collusion rule. Benefit of the doubt should go towards newer players and those with squeaky clean records. Judges who automatically escalate to maximum punishment are not worth their stripes imho. Being careful and observant is a tough task when you are tired and stressed and busy but that is why not everyone is suitable to be a judge even if they understand the rules thoroughly.
Also I completely and entirely disagree with your opinions about what is making (has made) magic "bad". But we each come to our conclusions based on personal experience as well as objective data we may have. In mine, when I had to leave suddenly from a tourney amidst the round it was not a terrible thing to be able to scoop. Same for many of my opps who have children and family who understandably come first.
As to scouting, this is a great example of an unenforceable rule being fixed. I don't particularly like that scouting exists but it should be allowed for everyone if it all. If you can't enforce the rule that makes it illegal in a fair and evenhanded manner then it is a bad rule.
Yes, but I have two buts;
1) The most experienced players, who are friends, can blink an eye to each other and they know exactly how it goes.
2) Collusion happen blatantly on the PT and World Cups where so called team members concede to each other in the swiss portion for mutual gain. It's written on the bigger trading sites for mtg; "TEAM this and that".
MtG is NOT a team game, (except when it is 3 team GPs.)
In both of the above the players do not have to speak to each other, but if a newer player as much as opens his mouth he is DQed !
MtG was once played with the rule that you werent allowed to concede games or matches, all the way up to 1999 or 2000, lots of GPs and PTs.
I assure you, the worst thing that has happened to mtg is that you are allowed to concede, the second worst thing was when scouting became allowed.
Here's another simplistic example: You can legally get drunk. You can legally drive. You cannot do both at the same time. Doing both legal things at the same time is illegal.
Or walking up to a bank teller and saying "I have a bomb." and "Give me money." You can make some technical argument that making either statement is not illegal, but I would strongly advise against trying it.
In most cases, if a player discusses both a prize split and a concession at the same time, it is because they are offering a bribe. That combination pretty much never comes up in any other situations.
There are always some ripple effects from bans but I have to say that in general Wizards just goes for the throat. There was talk of banning Siege Rhino when they banned Birthing Pod - you can build far more interesting decks with Pod but clearly Rhino isn't the problem. Banning Seething Song for the purpose of neutering Storm killed Through the Breach decks and Hive Mind decks. You do need to be conscious of how a ban may impact the rest of the decks in the format but I also think skirting around the issue tends to be ineffective.
Eye of Ugin is an interesting one as there is very clear splash damage to a major deck in the format. RG Tron is still perfectly playable without Eye but it is a considerable loss for the deck. Do I think this will affect Wizards' decision? Aaron's comments did give a glimmer of hope in that regard but ultimately I don't see it happening.
After reading that article, I think you might be best off with this conclusion from Reid Duke in the comments:
"I also think you took the right lesson from it all, which is that the rules are a little hazy on this type of thing, and it's safest just to keep yourself far away from it."
Here is my ethical quandry. In the last round of a DTK draft my opponent is at 4 life with no other creatures. I have a 5/5 flyer. My opponent plays a Soul flyer that should have deathtouch and flying but doesn't because it's bugged. Should I continue to play and pretend it has flying and deathtouch or just attack for the win. I ended up attacking for the win and messaging my opponent with the information he needed to file a compensation request.
Also, Stormscape Apprentice from the list reminded me of the very old Tribal days, I'm pretty sure before the 2007 Grand Creature Update, where Wizards was a huge powerhouse tribe and Stormscape was a cornerstone. I think AJ used to play in those too, but I'm wondering if anyone else from the current roster of players was there back then.
Talk in support channel on mtgo;
Me; *complain about something*
Orc; there is nothing wrong
Me; it is, terms and agreement says so
Orc; no, code of conduct / terms of use do not say this (both linked)
Me; do you have a history of previous versions of Terms of Use ? how many times it has been changed... and what was changed...etc
Orc; We do not. That is our most up to date terms of use policy.
Me; ...
They can change stuff overnight(i guess ?) and we cannot see previous versions - is that even allowed ?
It pretty much leaves the user powerless...
Whenever I played against Tsabo's Decree it was very devastating. Discard clause is what makes the card so powerful, because you cannot play around it. And 6 mana is not that much for decks that play it. However, there are many far more powerful cards that are legal, so I definitely don't see the card as problematic.
If I had to redo this Thought Lash list, I would use Wizards over Humans (though still splashing for Containment Priest who is bonkers and for which I have tutors). I would cut the Alchemist's Apprentice copies, preferring the 1-drop Dakra Mystic. This helps support the 4th Meddling Mage too.
Oh, ArchGenius=you. Yes, I agree with all your points.
...
I tuned the deck for speed, but lost on consistency. Shield Sphere is fun for free extra mana from overgrown battlements, but it was often dead. It should have been Wall of Blossoms.
The cloudpost base is new, and it was added to support the crop rotation plan in cases where instant speed bojuka bog aren't needed. (not reanimator)
I also learned my lesson to split 2 Swords to Plowshares, 2 Path to exile to survive against meddling mage.
Also the metagame has shifted quite a bit since I played it last. It used to be dominated by goblins and elves. Now reanimator and combo are the kings of the hill.
Yes you do not understand and that is precisely the problem you are having. Also you have only taught me that "conversing" with you is futile. Weigh that in your arrogance pipe and see how it measures up with your expectations.
Yes.
I do not understand, can you tell me in more words ?
Why are you treating 'The rules have evolved over time' as a revelatory triumph?
For example, I have managed to teach you that there have been different rules about concession and scouting in mtg before. That is good of me, and not just a yes no conversation.
Not many people manage to teach others on the internet !
The problem is if all you do is start arguments for the apparent sake of arguing you will end up with your comments unanswered instead of how we have been treating you so far.
There are other forms of persuasion than being directly antagonistic and confrontational. In fact you are much likely to get a true discussion going if you can manage to show acceptance when someone has a point that does not entirely jibe with your own world view (For example: "I see what you are saying: xyz." or "Yeah that might be true." or "I can see how you would feel that way." ... just sayin'...
Because being able to display that you are actively listening/reading enables the other person to reciprocate more easily. I am not saying you can't go about as you have been but after a while people may just write you off as a curmudgeon or worse.
yes, because they need to start.
Are you here to start arguments? That's what I'm getting out of all this.
Write something about bots in your next article please.
They are illegal per terms and agreement.
Id like to see how you defend wotc turning a blind eye to them.
I will write lots of comments quarreling with you.
You did note the date on the provisions you were quoting, right?
The DCI also used to DQ for a decklist error, such as only listing 56 cards. Things were a bit different 15 years ago.
Yes, did I note the date ? I played PTs and stuff during that period.
see my post further up...
http://www.wizards.com/dci/main.asp?x=MTG_DCI_Unirules
1.3.3 Conceding Duels
Players may only concede a *duel* in order to maintain a strategic advantage within a *match*. Whenever players wish to concede, they must have the approval of the head judge. If players concede duels for any other reason, they will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI penalty guidelines.
C. Unsporting Conduct
...
The following behavior is automatically considered unsporting conduct:
-
-
-
-
- scouting other competitors' *decks*
- enlisting the aid of observers to scout other competitors' decks
-
-
Any competitor behaving in a belligerent, argumentative, hostile, or unsporting manner will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI PENALTY guidelines.
I dont know what more to say.
Never. The DCI has never had official rules stating that you could not concede. Not once. Except maybe in some store "house" rules.
Also there is literally no way to prove a charge of collusion between friends unless they admit to it or there is a witness. This is like complaining that laws are unfair because they can't ensure there will be no laws ever broken. Completely unrealistic.
AND despite the fact that the pro tour has a history of alleged cheaters being accused, very few actual pros I have known would stoop to that to win. Is there a bit of camaraderie between pros that might lead them to scoop to a friend or a teammate? Sure but friendship isn't bribery or collusion in a legal sense.
I agree that there should be more to a DQ process than speaking out of turn but it can't be too much more than that or there will be NO enforcement of the no bribery/collusion rule. Benefit of the doubt should go towards newer players and those with squeaky clean records. Judges who automatically escalate to maximum punishment are not worth their stripes imho. Being careful and observant is a tough task when you are tired and stressed and busy but that is why not everyone is suitable to be a judge even if they understand the rules thoroughly.
Also I completely and entirely disagree with your opinions about what is making (has made) magic "bad". But we each come to our conclusions based on personal experience as well as objective data we may have. In mine, when I had to leave suddenly from a tourney amidst the round it was not a terrible thing to be able to scoop. Same for many of my opps who have children and family who understandably come first.
As to scouting, this is a great example of an unenforceable rule being fixed. I don't particularly like that scouting exists but it should be allowed for everyone if it all. If you can't enforce the rule that makes it illegal in a fair and evenhanded manner then it is a bad rule.
Yes, but I have two buts;
1) The most experienced players, who are friends, can blink an eye to each other and they know exactly how it goes.
2) Collusion happen blatantly on the PT and World Cups where so called team members concede to each other in the swiss portion for mutual gain. It's written on the bigger trading sites for mtg; "TEAM this and that".
MtG is NOT a team game, (except when it is 3 team GPs.)
In both of the above the players do not have to speak to each other, but if a newer player as much as opens his mouth he is DQed !
MtG was once played with the rule that you werent allowed to concede games or matches, all the way up to 1999 or 2000, lots of GPs and PTs.
I assure you, the worst thing that has happened to mtg is that you are allowed to concede, the second worst thing was when scouting became allowed.
Here's another simplistic example: You can legally get drunk. You can legally drive. You cannot do both at the same time. Doing both legal things at the same time is illegal.
Or walking up to a bank teller and saying "I have a bomb." and "Give me money." You can make some technical argument that making either statement is not illegal, but I would strongly advise against trying it.
In most cases, if a player discusses both a prize split and a concession at the same time, it is because they are offering a bribe. That combination pretty much never comes up in any other situations.
Very interesting article Gio!
There are always some ripple effects from bans but I have to say that in general Wizards just goes for the throat. There was talk of banning Siege Rhino when they banned Birthing Pod - you can build far more interesting decks with Pod but clearly Rhino isn't the problem. Banning Seething Song for the purpose of neutering Storm killed Through the Breach decks and Hive Mind decks. You do need to be conscious of how a ban may impact the rest of the decks in the format but I also think skirting around the issue tends to be ineffective.
Eye of Ugin is an interesting one as there is very clear splash damage to a major deck in the format. RG Tron is still perfectly playable without Eye but it is a considerable loss for the deck. Do I think this will affect Wizards' decision? Aaron's comments did give a glimmer of hope in that regard but ultimately I don't see it happening.
After reading that article, I think you might be best off with this conclusion from Reid Duke in the comments:
"I also think you took the right lesson from it all, which is that the rules are a little hazy on this type of thing, and it's safest just to keep yourself far away from it."