• @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.

    😛

    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 🙂

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

    Yeah I want to go back to 4x Lodestone/Karn/Gush whatever. This is lame duck.

    Some of these are much better and much worse than the others. I welcome 4x lodestone back with open arms into the Force of Vigor meta we live in. BEST OF LUCK I say.

    read more
WAF/WHF