Guys, I have created a Facebook group for Legacy Tribal Wars. Edh/Commander has one. Vintage has one, Legacy, Modern and Standard have tons.
With no forums and our community shattered and splintered, like the plot to the terrible 90's animated film Titan A.E., we need somewhere other than Pure to bounce Ideas off of each other. It's a public group and I am the only member thus far. I'd appreciate it if everyone joined it. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1696301197281192
In wotc's eyes the truth is simply something that makes it easier to argue for something when they make use of it.
If wotc believes the truth isnt good for this "something" then they dont make use of it, which means we sometimes see wotc presenting articles/public announcements with no truths at all (not even partial truths).
This is a perfect response. I just feel it will be ignored, as are all the wants and requests from the casual gamer. It's hard to ignore the death of these formats, the death of purchasing commander decks in the mtgo store, the death of our voices in decisions like who participates in the community cup. Now SCG has all but put the death knell into Legacy, and our cries and woes are ignored, only to be replaced with "hey have you guys seen this awesome standard/modern streamer?"
Their whole tactic of "ignore that, hey look over here" is insulting and easy to spot. More and more I feel like modern and standard players who grind and drop money are the only ones who matter, and we dumb schlubs who helped make the game popular with otu casual, kitchen top approach have served our purpose, now step aside.
Your passion shines through like a beacon to (other players and) me.
As an adult with autism and a serious physical disease, my opportunities for playing face-to-face are few. As a gift in August, my wife gave me an MGTO account. Since that time, I've spent less than $10 total and easily crafted more than a dozen different decks to play between the Standard Pauper and Tribal Wars formats. Please ignore my tournament records; I'm winning in other ways.
As a former therapist, and PhD student, I studied creative ways for autistic individuals to improve communications. Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), I began to read multicultural, non-verbal emotional expressions with greater success. Over time, I taught clients and friends how to build predictive empathy. This formed the basis of an international, award-winning comic book. If you've seen Ekman's movie "Inside Out" or watched the television show "Lie to Me," you are familiar with FACS that we use in our comics, too (Ekman was my mentor, btw).
...but MTGO doesn't require face-to-face opponents. We communicate with typed words, or MAYBE a podcast. We use the internet to post topics, set gaming times, and report player-ran tournaments. To me, I feel totally blind. No amount of emoticons convey how someone is really feeling, but most people cannot mask instinctual responses to any interaction. All of my expensive education is worthless to me in blind games via texts and clicks.
Why in the world would I want this playing environment? I need to grow, personally and professionally. Not one person ever was cruel or belittling to me. They don't know who I am nor do they care. Like visiting a foreign country, we interact better by having a guide or friend who shows us new customs, new ideas, and things we may otherwise have missed. Just yesterday, another friendly gamer (Telcar) showed me the game menu, and explained not only what the stages do online and how/when to click, but shared his typical settings and combat tricks about holding priority. He and others have bounced deck ideas off of me and want to play me, to improve their decks and give me more experience. Although I felt blind going into this format, even Tribal Wars, the PEOPLE who play these games are genuine professionals. Before I played Tribal Wars, I created an achievement!
In my professional life, I feel very confident that I have great autism-related connections and can get things done on this front. Currently, I'm working with educators to develop comic book-paced self-care instruction materials. My LinkedIn and Twitter followers are among the world's best recognized leaders in autism education, and more than one mainstream giant comic book company executive also follows and watches.
...but I'm growing at MTGO, too. When I contacted MTGOTraders.com about an order, I introduced myself to them. My comments about their customer service hit reddit, and was a nice nod to autism acceptance by them.
At 41 years old, I battle my health. I won wars at higher education and in courtrooms (I was a court room therapist). Now, MTGO threatens my new-found enjoyment by going back on its promise about Tribal Wars, and offers incompatible arguments to justify their removal of Standard Pauper. I started with standard pauper due to its price and a known format. When discussing mental health, more professionals than just me would encourage a smaller area in which new people can acclimate. Owing to its lower price entry point ("Pauper" is in the name!), more people could use these formats as a form of self-expression, social risk, and they might just have some fun...if they play their cards right. To me, as a mental health and autism advocate, is a large rebuke of disempowered segments of the population. Sure, I'm part of the "less than 1%" of the offenders who "fractures" the player base, but I am a person. I'm a person with autism. In the United States, our tribe constitutes about 1% of the total population, too. Thanks, WotC, for making me feel as welcomed as the vast part of society. Despite your efforts and broken promises, the players will still retain creative expression, regardless of filters or support, in spite of you and be stronger because of this fight.
WotC casts Channel. WotC casts Fireball. Within our collective communities, we are sure to hold at least one Cancel...
I'm giving WotC a face of a new player who really enjoys these formats. I want them to know who - specifically - they would be intentionally hurting by their proposed changes.
I just finished 2nd in the vintage pre with Jeskai Black. It's This deck with notion thief and demonic tutor. I was just testing it, because I'm not sure if it is worth it to splash for the two black cards. Only a few times was the splash positive, but it was never an impediment so I would try it again.
I ran extra mana artifacts and tolarian academy which were ok. Not great, but good.
Thanks for feedback. Modern is by far the format I love the most. I'll be devoting strong focus to this one with an ocassional splash to others if the brewing mind calls for it.
This week's announcement repeated that the formats are going away. It would have even been preferable for them to say nothing, which would indicate they're rethinking format removal.
I'm inclined to think three is the right number. Even though you can always loot away extras, he's not a great topdeck late when we have a ton of mana. Playing the first Snapcaster or second Dack over the fourth Jace is very defensible, and might just be better.
You're right on man. Mentor got a whole lot better. I saw some friends doing well with Jeskai Mentor, so I traded into it and it is really good. Today and yesterday i didn't do that well but the several days prior I didn't drop a match.
I currently have three Vryn's Prodigy in my list. I'd test four, I but they cost an arm and a leg.
There's a lot of tuning left to do, but the fact is Mentor decks used to go 3-1 all the time, now you see them in the 4-0 list quite a bit.
Blippy has given a lot of his time and effort to all of us. He has my support, whatever I can give I will.
I sometimes feel as if PureMTGO is the last bastion of the social aspect of Virtual Magic, a hub for a community that is increasingly fractured as time goes on.
Nice work on the article, I'm sharing it anywhere I can post links.
I don't know if the discussion is moving anywhere. But I was asked to motivate why I found it unethical. And I did.
Regarding the ethical behavior: It makes no difference to me whether I belonged to the treatment or control group. I don't like unknowingly being part of an experiment. So whether or not there was a "slap" involved is irrelevant to me.
I don't find it sad at all. It is not through a lack of critical thinking that this opinion is arrived at. It is through filtering via different life experiences that it is arrived at. In other words, every one has opinions and they will vary not always because one side is wrong but because there are often multiple sides to an issue. In this case you view this as manipulative advertisement. And that may well be true.
But it is also true that it is on the surface at least without any way of knowing better, a benevolent if enigmatic action. There was no slap for those who didn't receive, other than the knowledge that they didn't receive. And those who didn't receive found out through hearsay not by direct notice. (If there was an email telling people why they didn't receive then we'd have more definitive answers.)
For all we know, they are doing it slowly over time and those who didn't receive will get their goodies further down the line.
Speculating about possible unethical behavior doesn't really move this discussion along except possibly that you now have some knowledge of the various opinions in it.
I find it unethical to secretly manipulate people - others do as well.
Ethical advertising is clear about its intentions, refraining from subliminal messages or hidden agendas. When Wizards gives you a gift and tell you to try out Leagues they seem fairly clear about their intentions. However, if they are doing a treatment/control experiment then they have a hidden agenda that they did not tell you about. They what to monitor your behavior and compare it to the behavior of a different group. That is not something they clearly stated in their mail.
You say "There is nothing unethical about that by any common definition of the term." but advertising can be both ethical and unethical. It is commonly discussed (google it).
Furthermore, actions do not need to be "harmful" in order to be unethical. Look up the concept of "nudging" or "nudge". For example, you can get people in a cafeteria to eat healthier by placing healthy food first in line and unhealthy food last in line. That is a case of manipulation even if the intentions are "good". It is highly debatable if this is ethical behavior (google it to see the discussions).
What is maybe most saddening is that you just by instinct accept this kind of manipulation and hidden agenda as completely ok. You probably do not think that this is a big deal in this particular case but it is slippery slope.
Nah that's not it. It's something to do with your ip address or something like that. Because I have certainly done that myself and I don't get the captcha thing.
I would be very interested in hearing you explain how it is unethical to give free stuff to some people, but not others in order to see how it affects aggregate buying behavior.
The *only* possible harm in this situation is the possibility that customers that didn't get free stuff may feel slighted. First, that is a negligible level of "harm", and second, there is no way to conduct such research without having a control group that doesn't get free stuff.
There is nothing unethical about that by any common definition of the term.
Guys, I have created a Facebook group for Legacy Tribal Wars. Edh/Commander has one. Vintage has one, Legacy, Modern and Standard have tons.
With no forums and our community shattered and splintered, like the plot to the terrible 90's animated film Titan A.E., we need somewhere other than Pure to bounce Ideas off of each other. It's a public group and I am the only member thus far. I'd appreciate it if everyone joined it.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1696301197281192
In wotc's eyes the truth is simply something that makes it easier to argue for something when they make use of it.
If wotc believes the truth isnt good for this "something" then they dont make use of it, which means we sometimes see wotc presenting articles/public announcements with no truths at all (not even partial truths).
This is a perfect response. I just feel it will be ignored, as are all the wants and requests from the casual gamer. It's hard to ignore the death of these formats, the death of purchasing commander decks in the mtgo store, the death of our voices in decisions like who participates in the community cup. Now SCG has all but put the death knell into Legacy, and our cries and woes are ignored, only to be replaced with "hey have you guys seen this awesome standard/modern streamer?"
Their whole tactic of "ignore that, hey look over here" is insulting and easy to spot. More and more I feel like modern and standard players who grind and drop money are the only ones who matter, and we dumb schlubs who helped make the game popular with otu casual, kitchen top approach have served our purpose, now step aside.
(deleted duplicate post)
Your passion shines through like a beacon to (other players and) me.
As an adult with autism and a serious physical disease, my opportunities for playing face-to-face are few. As a gift in August, my wife gave me an MGTO account. Since that time, I've spent less than $10 total and easily crafted more than a dozen different decks to play between the Standard Pauper and Tribal Wars formats. Please ignore my tournament records; I'm winning in other ways.
As a former therapist, and PhD student, I studied creative ways for autistic individuals to improve communications. Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), I began to read multicultural, non-verbal emotional expressions with greater success. Over time, I taught clients and friends how to build predictive empathy. This formed the basis of an international, award-winning comic book. If you've seen Ekman's movie "Inside Out" or watched the television show "Lie to Me," you are familiar with FACS that we use in our comics, too (Ekman was my mentor, btw).
...but MTGO doesn't require face-to-face opponents. We communicate with typed words, or MAYBE a podcast. We use the internet to post topics, set gaming times, and report player-ran tournaments. To me, I feel totally blind. No amount of emoticons convey how someone is really feeling, but most people cannot mask instinctual responses to any interaction. All of my expensive education is worthless to me in blind games via texts and clicks.
Why in the world would I want this playing environment? I need to grow, personally and professionally. Not one person ever was cruel or belittling to me. They don't know who I am nor do they care. Like visiting a foreign country, we interact better by having a guide or friend who shows us new customs, new ideas, and things we may otherwise have missed. Just yesterday, another friendly gamer (Telcar) showed me the game menu, and explained not only what the stages do online and how/when to click, but shared his typical settings and combat tricks about holding priority. He and others have bounced deck ideas off of me and want to play me, to improve their decks and give me more experience. Although I felt blind going into this format, even Tribal Wars, the PEOPLE who play these games are genuine professionals. Before I played Tribal Wars, I created an achievement!
In my professional life, I feel very confident that I have great autism-related connections and can get things done on this front. Currently, I'm working with educators to develop comic book-paced self-care instruction materials. My LinkedIn and Twitter followers are among the world's best recognized leaders in autism education, and more than one mainstream giant comic book company executive also follows and watches.
...but I'm growing at MTGO, too. When I contacted MTGOTraders.com about an order, I introduced myself to them. My comments about their customer service hit reddit, and was a nice nod to autism acceptance by them.
At 41 years old, I battle my health. I won wars at higher education and in courtrooms (I was a court room therapist). Now, MTGO threatens my new-found enjoyment by going back on its promise about Tribal Wars, and offers incompatible arguments to justify their removal of Standard Pauper. I started with standard pauper due to its price and a known format. When discussing mental health, more professionals than just me would encourage a smaller area in which new people can acclimate. Owing to its lower price entry point ("Pauper" is in the name!), more people could use these formats as a form of self-expression, social risk, and they might just have some fun...if they play their cards right. To me, as a mental health and autism advocate, is a large rebuke of disempowered segments of the population. Sure, I'm part of the "less than 1%" of the offenders who "fractures" the player base, but I am a person. I'm a person with autism. In the United States, our tribe constitutes about 1% of the total population, too. Thanks, WotC, for making me feel as welcomed as the vast part of society. Despite your efforts and broken promises, the players will still retain creative expression, regardless of filters or support, in spite of you and be stronger because of this fight.
WotC casts Channel. WotC casts Fireball. Within our collective communities, we are sure to hold at least one Cancel...
I'm giving WotC a face of a new player who really enjoys these formats. I want them to know who - specifically - they would be intentionally hurting by their proposed changes.
I just finished 2nd in the vintage pre with Jeskai Black. It's This deck with notion thief and demonic tutor. I was just testing it, because I'm not sure if it is worth it to splash for the two black cards. Only a few times was the splash positive, but it was never an impediment so I would try it again.
I ran extra mana artifacts and tolarian academy which were ok. Not great, but good.
Thanks for feedback. Modern is by far the format I love the most. I'll be devoting strong focus to this one with an ocassional splash to others if the brewing mind calls for it.
This week's announcement repeated that the formats are going away. It would have even been preferable for them to say nothing, which would indicate they're rethinking format removal.
Thanks Joe
I'm inclined to think three is the right number. Even though you can always loot away extras, he's not a great topdeck late when we have a ton of mana. Playing the first Snapcaster or second Dack over the fourth Jace is very defensible, and might just be better.
I noticed that, considered digging up a screenshot of a slide from Helene Bergeot's presentation when that became possible.
Glad to see more Modern content, especially if you are going to brew with other fun cards like Wild Pair!
You're right on man. Mentor got a whole lot better. I saw some friends doing well with Jeskai Mentor, so I traded into it and it is really good. Today and yesterday i didn't do that well but the several days prior I didn't drop a match.
I currently have three Vryn's Prodigy in my list. I'd test four, I but they cost an arm and a leg.
There's a lot of tuning left to do, but the fact is Mentor decks used to go 3-1 all the time, now you see them in the 4-0 list quite a bit.
Loved this article :)
My apologies. I forget to sanitize for the disney crowd sometimes. :(
I deleted a couple of comments, I know everyone is fired up, and that's ok, but please keep it clean.
Thank you
I have, at one time or another, played all of those formats.
Interesting that you can sanction all of those formats for Friday Night Magic in the paper world, but can't play them online.
Awesome to hear, Joe! I hope this garners Blippy what he needs.
You don't know that you were part of an experiment. Neither do I. At this point it is just guess work.
Blippy has given a lot of his time and effort to all of us. He has my support, whatever I can give I will.
I sometimes feel as if PureMTGO is the last bastion of the social aspect of Virtual Magic, a hub for a community that is increasingly fractured as time goes on.
Nice work on the article, I'm sharing it anywhere I can post links.
I don't know if the discussion is moving anywhere. But I was asked to motivate why I found it unethical. And I did.
Regarding the ethical behavior: It makes no difference to me whether I belonged to the treatment or control group. I don't like unknowingly being part of an experiment. So whether or not there was a "slap" involved is irrelevant to me.
I don't find it sad at all. It is not through a lack of critical thinking that this opinion is arrived at. It is through filtering via different life experiences that it is arrived at. In other words, every one has opinions and they will vary not always because one side is wrong but because there are often multiple sides to an issue. In this case you view this as manipulative advertisement. And that may well be true.
But it is also true that it is on the surface at least without any way of knowing better, a benevolent if enigmatic action. There was no slap for those who didn't receive, other than the knowledge that they didn't receive. And those who didn't receive found out through hearsay not by direct notice. (If there was an email telling people why they didn't receive then we'd have more definitive answers.)
For all we know, they are doing it slowly over time and those who didn't receive will get their goodies further down the line.
Speculating about possible unethical behavior doesn't really move this discussion along except possibly that you now have some knowledge of the various opinions in it.
I find it unethical to secretly manipulate people - others do as well.
Ethical advertising is clear about its intentions, refraining from subliminal messages or hidden agendas. When Wizards gives you a gift and tell you to try out Leagues they seem fairly clear about their intentions. However, if they are doing a treatment/control experiment then they have a hidden agenda that they did not tell you about. They what to monitor your behavior and compare it to the behavior of a different group. That is not something they clearly stated in their mail.
You say "There is nothing unethical about that by any common definition of the term." but advertising can be both ethical and unethical. It is commonly discussed (google it).
Furthermore, actions do not need to be "harmful" in order to be unethical. Look up the concept of "nudging" or "nudge". For example, you can get people in a cafeteria to eat healthier by placing healthy food first in line and unhealthy food last in line. That is a case of manipulation even if the intentions are "good". It is highly debatable if this is ethical behavior (google it to see the discussions).
What is maybe most saddening is that you just by instinct accept this kind of manipulation and hidden agenda as completely ok. You probably do not think that this is a big deal in this particular case but it is slippery slope.
Nah that's not it. It's something to do with your ip address or something like that. Because I have certainly done that myself and I don't get the captcha thing.
I would be very interested in hearing you explain how it is unethical to give free stuff to some people, but not others in order to see how it affects aggregate buying behavior.
The *only* possible harm in this situation is the possibility that customers that didn't get free stuff may feel slighted. First, that is a negligible level of "harm", and second, there is no way to conduct such research without having a control group that doesn't get free stuff.
There is nothing unethical about that by any common definition of the term.
I think it may have been because I was putting a discrete subject in the box instead of having it truncate the first line of text. Maybe?
It is interesting! Yes. I agree.