Hello fellow Vintage enthusiasts!

The playlist for our region's Vintage Challenge for last quarter (4 of the Swiss rounds have commentated coverage) can now be found at:

www.youtube.com/AdelaideEternal

We hold a Vintage Challenge in South Australia once every 3 months so we have coverage from the previous tournaments, and also upcoming events are uploaded every quarter (if interested, you can subscribe to the channel and receive an update the moment our next Vintage coverage goes online).

Looking forward to continuing to contribute to the Vintage community and thanks for all the positive feedback πŸ™‚ Enjoy! Kind Rgds, S.

There will be a streak of Eternal events that includes the only EU Legacy GP if anyone fancies spending some time over here.
4 Seasons Fall, 23th-24th Nov, Bologna, with both Eternal formats
Magicfest Bologna, 29th-1st Dec, the only Legacy GP in EU
Nebraska's War, 5th-8th Dec Lucca, with both Eternal formats

Bologna's got an international airport easy to fly to and takes 1h and half of high speed train to reach Venice in case one wants to visit it while using Bologna as base during the first week. Then 30mins by train to the south there is Florence that one has to go through and can visit for a couple of days on his way to Lucca. Close to the latter there is Pisa with int airport to fly back home.

If coming only for one week the best combination in terms of Magic, tourism and time/money saving is GP+Nebraska, visiting Florence in the meantime. I'm a local and usually friends come for Nebraska's War from overseas (Joe Brennan, Dan Miller, etc.) so I can provide information and lodging in Florence, do not hesitate to ask.

@Prospero @PeAcH @Thiim @Twiedel @stsung @francois-f @albarkhane @Nightowl974 @matori @Timewalking @nsammael @babau @Aelien @Ceremanius @BranDawri @VCF @caron @Wintage @Grizzly @Tom-Bombadil

  • S

    @brianpk80 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

    @smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

    More generally, I don't think it's productive to try to question a person's intent (as you are doing here with me), as intent is difficult to discern let alone establish (as the body of civil rights law demonstrates). I would, however, look at the words people use and evaluate arguments as presented, and not try to read a hidden or obscure motive.

    I'm not questioning your intent; I'm asserting it.

    To assert that a person's intent is different from or contrary to one's averred reason is to question it, in the sense of "to doubt or dispute." There is really no need to assert or even question intent at all in this case. It can be clearly derived from the post in question - the statements made, the structure and organization, and the argument developed there. Take another look at my original post (31) in this thread:

    http://www.themanadrain.com/topic/3156/b-r-announcement-may-18-2020/31

    The main point I was making in the post was this: "I don't have an objection to Lurrus getting banned, but I am shocked and somewhat bothered by the speed at which they appear to be making this decision."

    Immediately after that statement, I suggested that a player's preference for a swift intervention is related to grinding games on MTGO, and that I felt the consensus was building too fast.

    Then just before juxtaposing Matt's tweets, I wrote: "I mean, check out the date stamps here:". Then, after the image, I wrote: "Within the space of 10 days, you went from saying they should wait a while, to saying they needed to ban it."

    Both the prefatory sentence and the following sentence make quite clear that my intending purpose for posting an image of his tweets: to illustrate how fast an MTGO grinder can evolve their opinion of B&R policy.

    If there were any doubt about that, the sentence immediately following dispels all doubt:

    "I do think that Wizards should wait at least a few months before banning a card in Vintage, or at least until people get a chance to play it a few times in paper. And I don't care how much MTGO data has been accumulated in the interim, a thousand matches or a million. One month isn't nearly enough time to ban a card in a 30 year old format."

    In short, my entire point, from start to finish, is that I don't think a month is enough time to ban a card in Vintage. I was showing how I believed MTGO grinders could come to a different conclusion, and trying to suggest that the announced-and-expected-Lurrus-Ban appeared to be catering to those preferences, rather than a census of the larger Vintage community.

    There is really no mystery at all in the post. Nothing veiled, nothing intimated, and nothing ambiguous in the phrasing or structure.

    There was no reason to reference Matt to make the banal self-evident point you were making, which does happen to be accurate. Frequent players adapt and change more rapidly.

    Actually, there was. Several reasons in fact. Please go back and re-read the post in context.

    First, I was writing directly to Matt. I wasn't just quoting Matt, and writing to a more general - let alone "casual" audience. Note the phrasing: "Within the space of 10 days, you went from saying they should wait a while, to saying they needed to ban it." (emphasis added)

    Matt was the primarily audience for most post. I realize message boards aren't private messaging systems. But I was speaking directly to Matt, albeit in a public forum. Casual observers were a secondary audience.

    Therefore, the first and most obvious reason for quoting Matt's tweets back to him was because I was speaking directly to him, showing him how fast the evolution of his opinion may appear to people who aren't similarly situated.

    In addition to the fact that I was directly speaking to Matt, and using his own public statements to illustrate my concerns, I think that some players who aren't on twitter or aren't playing so frequently (which, I think more TMD readers fit that profile than twitter or Discord users) may not have appreciated the degree to which opinion of players like Matt evolved. It seems "banal" and obvious to you, because you are networked in that way. But I suspect that many 'casual' observers in my secondary audience for the post may not have known that.

    The fact that you said there was "no reason" to reference Matt's tweets really goes to show that you weren't reading the post in context, or the reason would have been obvious. Or, perhaps, you lost sight of that in the multi-post back -and-forth. But there were several reasons to quote Matt. It wasn't so senseless as to leave the only conclusion that my purpose was to embarrass Matt.

    Yes, because he was the only player who met two criteria:

    He is known for playing frequently on MTGO (and thus comprising part of that group)

    Yes, and you lobbed a veiled insult there that MTGO players have some sort of luxury of time & circumstance which is a polite way of implying that they don't have a life.

    Not at all actually. There are different kinds of lives, all of which I value. Some people are single, in their 20s, as you put it, and have great and wonderful lives. But some people also have families, children, and other responsibilities. I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that Vintage players with children probably have less bandwidth to grind leagues on MTGO than those without, especially during this pandemic, when children are cloistered up with families. I'm not valuing those lives any more than others. But it is a fact that some players have the time and space to play lots of leagues, and others don't. I'm not valuing the lives of those players any more or less than the others. And if it read that way, I sincerely apologize, because that was not at all my intent.

    Rather, my point was that Wizards decision making should not be overly solicitous to the demands of those who are grinding the most on MTGO (nor the opposite). Rather, I was calling for a balanced approach that considers viewpoints of both MTGO and non-MTGO Vintage players, and MTGO players who play more frequently and those that play less. I think some of the MTGO players felt that I was saying that Wizards shouldn't listen to them. That's not the case either. Rather, I am really saying that I think the DCI should take a balanced approach.

    Again, what did I "misrepresent," exactly?

    You made it appear to a casual observer that Mr. Murray was volatile and contradicting himself. As I said above though, it's water under the bridge.

    First of all, the image of Matt's tweets don't - and weren't intended to show - that Matt is volatile. His posts here do that amply enough. The tweets don't demonstrate anything more than a considered change of opinion after a non-trivial number of games under his belt. No real hint of volatility there. If I were presenting them to show how volatile Matt is, I chose poorly.

    I do think that they show how quickly his opinion on the matter evolved, which was the point. That's not a "contradiction." After all, remember what I wrote immediately after the image: "Within the space of 10 days, you went from saying they should wait a while, to saying they needed to ban it."I explicitly showed that he was not contradicting himself.

    So to say that I misrepresented Matt's position by suggesting that he was contradicting himself just doesn't hold up. It doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. I specifically stated that he changed his views, before and after the image of his tweets.

    Apply your legal skills: Is there a single fact (material or otherwise) relating to his posts that I misrepresented? And if so, what is it? I'd very much like to know.

    If not - if you can't find any misrepresentation- then do me the courtesy of at least conceding the point. At most, you could talk with Matt and state your conclusion that I didn't actually misrepresent anything.

    Oh, yes. Twin Peaks is one of my favorite shows of all time, a brilliant opus on the alienation and horror in the underbelly of suburban America. But I doubt that endorsement will help your cause here πŸ™‚

    I suspect you're familiar with the studies showing that the stronger the evidence presented that counters an opposing position, the more likely the "incorrect" party is to further entrench into an untrue belief, rather than seeing the light. He'll probably avoid the show now out of spite, for both of us.

    I think your larger challenge will be to pry him away from MTGO πŸ˜›

    Stay safe,

    You as well.

    Stephen

    read more
  • @smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

    More generally, I don't think it's productive to try to question a person's intent (as you are doing here with me), as intent is difficult to discern let alone establish (as the body of civil rights law demonstrates). I would, however, look at the words people use and evaluate arguments as presented, and not try to read a hidden or obscure motive.

    I'm not questioning your intent; I'm asserting it. There was no reason to reference Matt to make the banal self-evident point you were making, which does happen to be accurate. Frequent players adapt and change more rapidly.

    Additionally, one cannot spend several days trying to psychologically profile someone and then cry foul when another asserts their own questionable motivations. Given the prevalence of COVID-19 in both California and Pennsylvania, this is certainly not the right time for unclean hands.

    πŸ˜›

    Yes, because he was the only player who met two criteria:

    He is known for playing frequently on MTGO (and thus comprising part of that group)

    Yes, and you lobbed a veiled insult there that MTGO players have some sort of luxury of time & circumstance which is a polite way of implying that they don't have a life. That's untrue for the online players I know. I know I'm certainly not out on the streets of Philly or even "little Philly" (Wilkes-Barre) buzzed from one malt beverage quite as often as I was when I was the prince of the night, single and (dare I say it) a bit more svelt in my 20's, but TBH I've found I enjoy my time with Magic & other players more than other crowds. YMMV.

    Again, what did I "misrepresent," exactly?

    You made it appear to a casual observer that Mr. Murray was volatile and contradicting himself. As I said above though, it's water under the bridge.

    A scientist is, in the ideal, supposed to be objective, neutral, dispassionate, etc. When it comes to B&R policy, these are not words I would associate with Matt.

    I have observed a pattern where Matt, more than other players, is quick to call for restrictions and/or bannings. That tendency does not strike me the pattern of a scientist, but rather an advocate. His 4/23 post is on point: it's not a data-based opinion, but rather a personal dislike for a particular interaction.

    Leaving Matt out of the equation, in general, yes, I see that issue with self-styled science supremacists and it's a smart observation.

    Oh, yes. Twin Peaks is one of my favorite shows of all time, a brilliant opus on the alienation and horror in the underbelly of suburban America. But I doubt that endorsement will help your cause here πŸ™‚

    I suspect you're familiar with the studies showing that the stronger the evidence presented that counters an opposing position, the more likely the "incorrect" party is to further entrench into an untrue belief, rather than seeing the light. He'll probably avoid the show now out of spite, for both of us.

    Stay safe,

    -B

    read more
  • @serracollector

    How would you build a 4x Balance deck with staying power?

    On one hand it has to be an artifact centric deck, right? And at that point, is it better than Paradoxical Outcome or other things you can do with all that artifact mana?

    It seems like best case scenario, it’s a 2 mana Wrath for PO decks. (Where you probably wouldn’t want 4)

    read more
  • S

    We need to unrestrict Balance. I mean, it's got the word Balance right there. 4 x Balance = Balanced format. Ez pz guys and gals.

    read more
WAF/WHF