@vaughnbros said in SMIP: 2020 B&R Roundup:
I’d be very happy with turn time limits, while we are discussing ways to improve Vintage and magic in general. Watching someone combo for 10 minutes straight, while I just click “ok” over and over again is the dumbest, most boring part of the game.
That's my favorite part 
On Magic Online you can just F6
My annual, mid-year take on what should change in every format I care about. Five suggested changes for Vintage:
Let me know your thoughts!
Best,
Stephen
@protoaddict said in The best format in Vintage history ...:
@smmenen said in The best format in Vintage history ...:
@protoaddict Which periods, precisely?
Did not realize there were rules to this. 87 -92 is my sweet spot.
Well, @Brass-Man did lay them out in the OP
@ace-hunter said in The best format in Vintage history ...:
Should Standstill be added as a "Notable Printing"?
Probably.
The timeline has been updated FYI
https://www.eternalcentral.com/timeline-of-vintage/
A number of errors have been corrected and a lot of additional links have been added. I think that’s about it for now thank you so much for your interest in this!
I also updated some labels and a bunch of other tweaks.
@maximumcdawg said in New Companion Errata:
@smmenen Waaaait a minute here, Steven.
You've been all over people (like me!) who mis-use the term "Power Level Errata" in the past. Now you're mis-using it? Shame on you, brah.
Power-level errata, as the School of Menedian taught me, means issuing errata to change card text for the express purpose of reducing its power level. Now, usually it's misapplied by people who apply it to a change that is justified by original intent or original function but has the practical effect of reducing power level.
It seems like you're doing the same thing, but abusing a different part of the definition. Wizards is not issuing errata for card text like they did in the Power Level Errata era. Instead, they're changing rules. This is something that happens all the time. Hell, remember the Mulligan rule changes? Remember that cluster? Damage on the stack? Lotus-freaking-Vale? Rules changes are not the same thing as card errata and you know this.
I think the calm version of what I'm trying to say is that it's alarming to me to see someone who has always been so calm and clinical about the application of errata policy essentially break out the pitchforks over this one.
I didn’t actually say anything. All I did was post to snarky photo to be funny.
In any case, I actually do think this qualifies as power level errata. The express purpose of this change is to power down the companion mechanic.
It’s true it’s just a rules change. But it’s not a rule change with an incidental byproduct. The effect is the purpose.
It’s true that makes it different from most cases of power level errata, but not all.
To get technical about it, power level errata is a change to functionality that differs from the original ruled and intended functionality for the express and primary purpose of lowering a cards power. But that can occur by changing a cards text or by changing the rules. In almost all instances in which rules have been changed it’s because there has been a systemwide change. In this case it’s a targeted change in the mechanic with very few cards printed so far.
@griselbrother said in The best format in Vintage history ...:
@evouga said in The best format in Vintage history ...:
@griselbrother Yep. And during a large part of that window, Git Probe and Gush were unrestricted too.
I had completely forgotten that it was unrestricted for so long. It should have been restricted within a month and then perhaps we could still have Gush among us. Mentor is such a disaster of a card, though I did actually enjoy Menendian's and Cron's Outcome Mentor deck that they brought to the Worlds one year.
That was the most insane deck I've ever played to go just 5-4 or whatever my final record was.
@desolutionist said in The best format in Vintage history ...:
Ok, so instead of polishing up my final essays for the last week of school, I’m writing about Vintage. I’m a horrible person. Here are my three favorite Vintage metagames: (Where I had the most success)
That's awesome Shawn. Thanks for sharing. I hope you got a nice little break from school with this trip down memory lane.
66 – The Mean Deck Metagame
I think there are actually some errors with the timeline with regards to 66-67. Flash breaks out BEFORE Gifts Ungiven is restricted.
You are correct, but the timeline notes section (and explanatory notes a the bottom) explains this.
The notes section explains that Flash errata occurred on May 15th. (Flash is issued errata with the Oracle update for Future Sight (5/15/2007). )
Gifts was Restricted effective July 1st. So the "Flash Breaks Out" metagame from May 20-June 19th, is the metagame in which Flash was powered-up AND Gifts was unrestricted.
Sorry if the timeline is confusing on this. But when a restriction occurs, it is indicated in the notes section of the period preceding it, because it usually concludes and book-ends that period.
I hope that helps.
Best,
Stephen
Brian,
You've lost sight of the forest for the trees.
The issue here is the swiftness with which a card was banned in Vintage, based, I believe, on an over-solicitousness to the most-frequent MTGO players.
I started expressing my concerns on this topic nearly three years ago, including with this article here.
In that article, I wrote, with growing unease, about how the change in the format is being experienced, and how it underlies widening cleavages between segments of the player base regarding B&R policy. The article is brief (for me) and worth revisting in its entirety.
But one particular passage reads:
With the advent of Vintage on Magic Online, there is now a platform for playing and enjoying Vintage beyond the confines of local and even regional or national tournaments. Instead, players can battle in daily tournaments for pride and profit, not to mention experience. Here, players make day-to-day adjustments [...], observing micro-trends in a very well defined metagame. From this perspective, the Vintage format looks pretty different than the year to year or even quarterly vantage point. The third perspective is a relatively new one for Vintage, and it is a way that Magic Online has changed Vintage.
I continued:
This is a fundamental difference between paper Magic and Magic Online. If you examine the metagame breakdowns of larger paper tournaments and the larger Magic Online Vintage tournaments, paper tournaments are more diverse, with more players playing marginal strategies, and even doing well. In contrast, Magic Online events are more homogeneous, with fewer fringe decks.
This is one of the sources of anxiety. The production of daily decklists changes the perception of the format, especially from the quarterly or even annual perspectives. Even two weeks of similar daily results can now result in complaints about the format being monotonous, despite the fact that this would be perfectly normal from a paper Vintage perspective, where events unspool at a slower clip. But, critically, this perception is generated among both Magic Online players and paper Vintage players from simply reading tournament reports.
This points towards another distinction consequence from the arrival of Vintage on Magic Online: the needs of different player groups. [...]Players playing three or four times a week have a very different experience than those playing once a month, or less. And their perception of the format and the metagame is accordingly different as well.
I then went onto examine how these differences shape demands and preferences for B&R policy, in ways that were creating significant unhappiness in the Vintage Community. That has hardly abated since.
Matt has always, at least in my mind, stood in for a vanguard of players who first, and primarily, encountered or were drawn into Vintage through the portal of MTGO. But more than that, he's also been a highly visible and frequent streamer, an even smaller group. And, even more than that, he's been probably the most vocal proponent of calling for restrictions based upon MTGO results on a time frame that is faster than virtually anyone else.
That last point means that Matt's statements provide a very useful frame of reference for thinking about these different groups, and that is why I excerpted his tweets, in addition to the fact that I was responding directly to him.
That is not to say that any of the groups in the paragraph immediately preceding this one are of a single-mind on any topic. Justin Gennari, who I would probably put in the first two groupings in that same paragraph, had publicly expressed reservations over a ban, although I don't think he quite came out and explicitly said "this should not occur."
Nor is that to say that no other motives or intents could be present in juxtaposing his tweets. It is, of course, always possible to do one thing for multiple reasons, as is called "mixed motives" in law. But you do not credit this motive at all.
In fact, you accuse (or in fact outright state) that my primary motive in this thread for presenting his tweets wasn't to illustrate how quickly views evolve among MTGO players. Rather, the primary motive you ascribe to me, of presenting his tweets to, among the various phrases you've used,: 1) "misrepresent," 2) "embarrass," 3) "provoke," 4) "make Matt seem 'volatile,'"5) make Matt seem like he was 'contradicting himself'," 6) "appear inconsistent," 7) "ma[k]e him appear fickle and inconsistent," 
" volatile and ridiculous," 9) "unflattering."
It's notable that none of Matt's posts in response to my original post in this thread accused me of any of those motives. Even at his most angrily vitriolic, the most he did was accuse me of "cherry-picking," "omission," "being disingenuous," and "shady lawyering." Only later on, in post 196, did he accuse me of "misrepresenting" his views.
Now, let's consider the 9 motives I just listed you've ascribed to me. I would ask reader perusing this thread to re-read the original post in question, which is here: http://www.themanadrain.com/topic/3156/b-r-announcement-may-18-2020/31
After reading that post, which set of motives sounds more plausible?
- The 9 motive list presented above, as my true purpose in constructing that post?
Or:
- My averred purpose: which is to illustrate a player who fits the demographic group that I was writing about, and that the swift B&R policy appeared to be overly responsive toward?
Why go to all the trouble to express my concerns about the speed of the change if my intent was the long list you have accused me of? That would all be superfluous window dressing for the real purpose of a cleverly disguised attack ad on Matt.
While I suppose one could reasonable assume I am capable of being that insidious, and I won't pretend that my motives are always pure, in this case, I think it's pretty clear that such an accusation (one could say aspersion) is patently silly and obviously baseless, based upon the content, structure and organization of the post (31 in this thread), and my long history of raising these related concerns.
To be clear, one could more reasonably argue that my averred purpose was the primary purpose, but I had a secondary, or subsidiary motive among the list of 9 above. But you have foreclosed that possibility in your own posts. To be clear, in your responses (posts 192, 198, 200, and 202), you explicitly state that my motive was not what I claimed, but that I was whitewashing my true intent.
To wit:
-"this is a clever retroactive whitewashing of intent, but a PR spin nonetheless."
-"I'm not questioning your intent; I'm asserting it."
- "There was no reason to reference Matt to make the banal self-evident point"
- " I don't doubt your intent is because I can state with a high degree of confidence that it was not as above board as this implausible deniability parade suggests."
So, this isn't an instance where you are crediting my averred intend, or admitting the possibility of mixed motives. You are directly disputing the former and rejecting the latter!
I will state it again: It was not my intent to embarrass, provoke, unflatter, etc. Matt. Rather, my primary purpose in presenting his tweets was to present an example of how quickly his views evolved in raising concerns about a swift banning in this case, which I felt was overly responsive to MTGO players, and not balanced in a way that considered a broader swath of opinion.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion and any conclusion you wish to draw about my intent in presenting the two tweets I juxtaposed, but I assure you, and anyone else reading, that the motives you ascribed were not motivating factors in my decision to include that image in my post. Rather, I already explained several times why I included them:
- He is known for playing frequently on MTGO (and thus comprising part of that group)
- He posted clear public tweets that stood on their own that illustrated the speed with which one of MTGO players could evolve their opinions on this topic.
I couldn't find anyone else who fit those criteria, at all, let alone so nicely. There is a notable reticence among some players to speak out publicly about B&R preferences. Matt was one of the few who did, and whose views appeared to evolve most during that short period. After all, the original tweet had not-terrible things to say about Lurrus.
@brianpk80 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
@smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
You and Matt claim that I misrepresented his position by posting the first tweet doesn't even make sense on its face. The second tweet in the same image dispels any illusions that I was attempting to demonstrate a contradiction with anything in this thread.
It was your truncation of his thread that gave an inaccurate portrayal of his position, hence the misrepresentation. Juxtaposing those two statements together made him appear fickle and inconsistent.
First of all, I didn't actually truncate any statement. I included a tweet in it's entirety. There was no 1/x or (cont'd) to signal a continuation of the same thought. The thought was complete in it's entirety, well-written, and nuanced. Yes, there were other tweets responding to it, which Matt shared here: http://www.themanadrain.com/assets/uploads/files/1589410814305-6d5795b1-b077-46a6-bb9a-e45475e1b92b-image.png
But there is nothing in those subsequent tweets that fundamentally changes the meaning in the original tweet. The original tweet's premise is that Companions are very powerful, but do not violate counterplay or end games too quickly, and it's conclusion is that they should be given time. The tweets Matt posted below it essentially elaborate on that view. He says they will "likely"(which is not the same thing as a certainty) prove warping or problematic, but re-affirms his point that they should be given time.
So, even if I had included all of the tweets in the list (which would have made the image too big and unreadable), it wouldn't have fundamentally changed the meaning for which I included it: that Matt was saying that they should be "given time" in one tweet, and then concluded a few days later (in a tweet that I didn't include) that he was sick of them, and then a few days after that, that they should be banned within a month or two.
I disagree that juxtaposing them made Matt seem "fickle" or "inconsistent." Rather, it showed that he had an evolution of views based upon his engagement with the cards themselves.
And, if it made him "seem" fickle or inconsistent, a) that was not my intent, and b) appearing fickle is not the same thing as 'misrepresenting' one's views. His conclusion changed, even if he proactively allowed for the possibility of changing one's mind. Such an allowance is entirely unnecessary. Every person is entitled to change one's mind on any matter.
That's because the second tweet in the same image was consistent with his position in this thread.
There was nothing wrong with the second tweet.
So, here you are claiming not that I misrepresented his position, but that I was trying to "make him look bad"? How exactly? By suggesting a contradiction? I thought I already answered that charge before: the juxtaposition of the two tweets demonstrate not a contradiction, but a 10 day change of opinion, based upon intervening experiences.
Again, the overall effect made him look volatile and ridiculous. It was reminiscent of an attack ad.
I totally disagree. Both the first and second tweet appear to be well-written, nuanced, and thoughtfully considered. Juxtaposing them doesn't make him seem volatile or ridiculous. Rather, his posts here do, where he angrily lashed out.
Like most pseudo-controversies on The Mana Drain, the analysis does not actually call for legal skills.
No, it doesn't call for it, but it does help from time to time. Law provide clarity and well-worn guidance. Law has established workable definitions and elements that can be applied to adduce evidence or draw conclusions that might support one claim over another.
Matt claims I misrepresented his views. In law, a "misrepresentation" is a "false statement of a material fact."
No, there is no universal and ubiquitous definition of misrepresentation in "law." There may be one in some edition of Restatement of Torts. Some jurisdictions may decline to use it. It's used in Contract Law in ways that are not identical to Torts. It shows up in multiple additional areas of law, random subsections of statutes, international law, and of course then must be defined in any number of languages which opens the quest for precision up to any further number of adulterating factors.
Well put. I should have clarified that one legal definition was...
But my point remains: law provides workable definitions tested over generations that can provide clarity, guidance and structure to debates such as this. Does not mean we should always apply them, but they can be of use.
Additionally, a misrepresentation is not simply a lie or a false statement of fact as one would find in defamation. A true statement of material fact can be presented in a manner that misrepresents its truth in context. For instance, "Bette said 'I ate my children' " is technically true because Bette did use those words when stating "I deny that I ate my children." But the former statement conveys something close to contradictory to what the full statement actually conveys. Hence, her statement was misrepresented.
I agree. But, I further deny that there was any contextual information that changed Matt's conclusion or the meaning here. I have already explained why. I further deny that the juxtaposition was intended or had the effect of making him seem volatile, ridiculous, etc. for reasons I also just offered.
Applied here, it is more likely that participants in this thread used the term misrepresentation as it is understood colloquially rather than legally, even setting aside the lack of a universal term definition. That means there was no shying from engaging with your technical analysis; I simply found it inapposite as I believe I've communicated previously.
No, but you did shy away from it: not the legal analysis, but the argument based upon the structure, content, and organization of the post (31). For example, you completely ignored my point about the text that immediately precedes and immediately follows the use of the image as shedding light on my motives for its inclusion.
If he or you wish to accuse me of something else, I would certain consider that accusation on its merits, but let's be as clear as possible about what it is we are accusing me of. Because if my "crime" is something else, then don't label me as misrepresenting his views. Call it for what it is.
You are not being accused of any crime or being sued.
That is why I used the word "crime" in scare quotes here. I meant: if you are accusing me of malicious intent, other than misrepresentation, then be clear about it, and drop the claim that I 'intended to misrepresent" Matt's views.
My point was far more important than Matt's comparatively trivial tweets. I was arguing that DCI policy should be more balanced, and that a swift banning was too fast. Matt's tweet was buried in the middle of this much larger point. You seem to think that the main purpose of my post was to jab Matt. Quite the contrary. The purpose was to argue against a swift banning, and Matt's tweets nicely illustrated some of the premises to my argument.
I don't believe you're unable to understand how positioning two contradictory statements by one person next to each other is unflattering. Surely you remember a certain someone who "voted for" the war "before I voted against it" and how damaging that clip was. Saddest November of all time.
Oh, I absolutely do remember, but I disagree that that was the saddest November. You are referring to the November of 2004, but the saddest November was that of 2016.
In any case, I agree that such juxtaposition can have that effect. But I deny that it either does here or was intended to do so. The reason is simple: the tweets are not sound bites. They are complete, balanced, nuanced, and well-written thoughts. They weren't brief or truncated excerpts. They illustrate an evolution of opinion, not a contradiction.
Full transparency:
The reason I even had an image of Matt's two tweets was because I took a phone screen shot of both, and text messaged them to Kevin without any note or commentary.
His reply: "MTGO moves quickly when you're a streamer."
Exactly. That was on May 12th, the day before I wrote post 31.
Kevin understood exactly my intended meaning AND the effect. He didn't interpret the juxtaposition as an attempt to embarrass, provoke, or make Matt look inconsistent or volatile. He understood immediately the purpose and effect even without the benefit of my prefatory language or larger post to make that point.
If Kevin got it without those benefits, it's likely most readers, reading it without also seeing your and Matt's subsequent accusations and imputation of my motives, probably would have drawn similar inferences.
Maybe next time, avoid jumping to conclusions?
Best,
Stephen
@albarkhane said in Is it possible to have vintage be community run and maintained?:
I asked many former vintage players why they stopped. There were personnal reasons of course but the most common answer directly related to the game was : games were boring and not interesting.
But compared to what? I think it's important for people to pinpoint when they felt game play was so much better. Too often, however, it's just a generalized feeling rather than a specific period or instantiation of Vintage.
@brianpk80 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
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.
You posted an image of Matthew stating something that directly contradicted his position throughout this thread but omitted the part where he said straight up that he believed his position would change over time which would have drastically mitigated the appearance of inconsistency.
You and Matt claim that I misrepresented his position by posting the first tweet doesn't even make sense on its face. The second tweet in the same image dispels any illusions that I was attempting to demonstrate a contradiction with anything in this thread.
That's because the second tweet in the same image was consistent with his position in this thread. So how could the first image appear to be a contradiction, when the second image, which was juxtaposed to the first, clarified or explained his changed position?
As stated before, it made him look bad to the average -casual- reader and succeeded in advancing a hostile pattern of antagonism and prurient psychological inquiries & implications that befell him in this thread, all conducted under a veil of upstanding behavior.
So, here you are claiming not that I misrepresented his position, but that I was trying to "make him look bad"? How exactly? By suggesting a contradiction? I thought I already answered that charge before: the juxtaposition of the two tweets demonstrate not a contradiction, but a 10 day change of opinion, based upon intervening experiences.
I dispute the notion that people changing or sharpening their views makes people 'look' bad, but even if that were the case, that doesn't establish my intent to do so. That's pretty tenuous, Brian.
Like most pseudo-controversies on The Mana Drain, the analysis does not actually call for legal skills.
No, it doesn't call for it, but it does help from time to time. Law provide clarity and well-worn guidance. Law has established workable definitions and elements that can be applied to adduce evidence or draw conclusions that might support one claim over another.
Matt claims I misrepresented his views. In law, a "misrepresentation" is a "false statement of a material fact."
My question to you was simple: I would very much like to know what I said that qualifies. If nothing I said does, then I would like an apology for being accused of misrepresenting his views.
If he or you wish to accuse me of something else, I would certain consider that accusation on its merits, but let's be as clear as possible about what it is we are accusing me of. Because if my "crime" is something else, then don't label me as misrepresenting his views. Call it for what it is.
But I don't see how I misrepresented any fact, material or otherwise. If I did, please state what I misrepresented - what I presented as true, but was in fact false.
It's a humanities issue. Certainly anyone could concoct a devil's advocate hypothetical counterargument, and you've done so here with flair. But it was a futile exercise. No one doubts your acumen as a logician; you're indeed superb. That however makes additional evidence of your ability redundant.
But Brian, you haven't engaged with any of the arguments I made. Most of what you have said here is just rhetoric. Florid, wonderful rhetoric, but nothing you said in this paragraph actually attempts to refute any of the reasoning I presented regarding the structure, purpose, or logic of my OP in this thread.
My point was far more important than Matt's comparatively trivial tweets. I was arguing that DCI policy should be more balanced, and that a swift banning was too fast. Matt's tweet was buried in the middle of this much larger point. You seem to think that the main purpose of my post was to jab Matt. Quite the contrary. The purpose was to argue against a swift banning, and Matt's tweets nicely illustrated some of the premises to my argument.
@vaughnbros said in The best format in Vintage history ...:
"GrowATog Arises" - This is when I really started to play in proxy tournaments so certainly got me hooked on Vintage. It was rare for someone to actually play any of the combo decks, or Workshops so we got to play a lot of blue mirrors. Mono Blue with Morphling and then restricted Mind over Matter+Arcanis the Omnipotent combo was fun to battle the GrowATog and Fish decks of that time.
"Lodestone & Jace Era begins" to "Delver Rising" - I know this is a long time period, but to me this was the era that I perhaps enjoyed the most. The "Lodestone" era was the only time in Vintage that I can recall, where you were truly required to play a fair deck. I recall the first question for a valid deck was "Can it beat turn 1 Lodestone?", and if your answer was no then the deck was basically unplayable. The slower format allowed me to tinker with a number of combos, and control decks that just wouldn't work in the faster iterations of the format. Landstill, and Dredge with transformed sideboards were personal favorites of mine. Nothing beats the joy of Cavern into Divining Witch into Laboratory Maniac and then answering their final removal spell with a Bazaar activation.
Per Andy's OP, you are referring to:
- Period 47
- Periods 80-99
I think it's perfectly fine to say group these periods into eras/epochs/whatever however you like.
Thanks for sharing. Keep them coming.
Wow, I came here to post the links, and they were already here! Thanks guys. And I love the fact that you've already come up with your lists.
I also really appreciate the kind words about my effort here, Andy. It was a labor of love.
Keep your lists coming!
Since I already shared my lists in the article (https://www.eternalcentral.com/schools-of-magic-the-history-of-vintage-the-best-and-worst-vintage-formats-of-all-time/ ), I will share the format numbers that key to the timline:
My best:
#5 (timeline format #13) (Ice Age Type 1)
#4 (timeline formats # 101-102) (Dack Fayden-Khans)
#3 (timeline format #60) (post-Guildpact)
#2 (timeline format # 73) (Pre-Shards)
#1 (timeline format # 46) (pre-Onslaught)
I also really liked period #50. That's an honorable mention for me.
One of the complications from this exercise, which I think shows up in Andy's and Brian Demars lists, is that some of the formats can be objectively miserable, but personally rewarding. For example, period 118, associated with the Workshop/Mentor Duopoly, was not an objectively great metagame, but I did nearly win an NYSE and got 2nd place in a Vintage challenge in that period, so it was pretty good for me personally.
Keep it coming!
Best,
Stephen
@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
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 
Stay safe,
You as well.
- Stephen
@brianpk80 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
@smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
I didn't juxtapose those two tweets to suggest that he was contradicting himself, or else I would have hidden the date stamp (which would have been misleading).
Rather, I juxtaposed those two tweets to illustrate how quickly he changed his mind. In that sense, it was "inconsistent," especially since he said we should "wait some time," but that wasn't why I presented them. I wasn't trying to portray him as inconsistent.
Quite the contrary. I presented the juxtaposed tweets to illustrate the speed with which someone could change their opinion on something like this, because of how much they were playing online and data was being generated, serving my larger point about the different segments of the Vintage player base and how they experience Vintage.
Oh my. To your credit, this is a clever retroactive whitewashing of intent, but a PR spin nonetheless.
I'm asking in good faith: what, exactly, was my "original intent" then, if it wasn't to show that the players who were playing MTGO frequently were forming opinions and calling for action more quickly, on average, other players? Because if there was another purpose, I am unaware of it.
If you think it was to show that Matt was contradicting himself, well that clearly doesn't make sense, because there was a 10 day gap between the tweets I presented. And, as I said, people can change their minds over time, as new data is developed (which was my larger point).
Moreover, I actually responded to the second tweet, with this:
"Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was trying to reconcile something you said recently with your post here (https://twitter.com/chubby_rain1/status/1251917535907319811?s=21) just 10 days ago that was far more sanguine about companions."
To which he responded, that he "ran through the countermeasures and decided it wasn't something I was much interested in playing." In other words, he seemed to be distinguishing between his personal opinion/experience and what he thought the DCI should do. So, obviously, the purpose in juxtaposing the tweets wasn't to illustrate a contradiction, but to illustrate the speed with which an opinion can change, at least tonally, if not in terms of the actions-hoped-for.
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.
In any case, I'm unclear, exactly, on what you think my original intent was, if it wasn't what I averred in the quote at the top of your most recent post.
Any point about players changing their minds rapidly could have been made without reference to Matthew, but something compelled you to select him specifically.
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)
-
He posted clear public tweets that stood on their own that illustrated the speed with which one of MTGO players could evolve their opinions on this topic.
I couldn't find anyone else who fit those criteria, at all, let alone so nicely. There is a notable reticence among some players to speak out publicly about B&R preferences. Matt was one of the few who did, and whose views appeared to evolve most during that short period. After all, the original tweet had not-terrible things to say about Lurrus.
The misrepresentation was audacious considering how directly the truncated statements right beneath it contradicted the point your curation pretended he was making.
Again, what did I "misrepresent," exactly?
The tactic appears intended by desire to embarrass or provoke Mr. Murray and it clearly succeeded in the latter.
Wrong. That was not my intent, and it's frankly insulting to say that I intended to provoke or embarrass Matt, let alone anyone. I assure you that was not the case. My intent was to show to the readers an example of someone who changed their mind during a relatively short period of time, and was among the MTGO grinders who was calling for a relatively fast intervention.
Even in the case of people I find odious, like our current President, I never have an intent to provoke or embarrass. It may occasionally be a byproduct of a point I am developing or argument I am making, but if I had known that Matt would have reacted so angrily, I probably wouldn't have posted the screen shot of his tweets.
In retrospect, however, a better tweet would have been his 4/23 tweet, where he said: "Reached my breaking point with Lurrus + Lotus. It just happens too much to be a reasonable thing. I'm done until Lurrus inevitably gets neutered in the format." That would have illustrated a faster change of opinion, and done so more in a personal preference than explicitly in terms of B&R policy.
That does not excuse Matt's grizzling but it cannot be said to be unexplained, least of all by whatever errant psychological profile you are trying to imply. This is basic human behavior. A provokes B. B barks at A.
I don't even know why Matt was so angry, honestly. It's still not clear to me what he thought I was misrepresenting. It feels more like generalized and accumulating anger being poorly directed at me than anything I actually said.
Matt says that I was 'cherrypicking' his tweet by only presenting the top tweet, and not the same tweets in that thread. So, what was I supposed to to, post an image of every tweet in the thread? That's not reasonable. I didn't cherry pick - I selected the only cherry that was on the branch - that is, the only tweet which specifically and explicitly stated what he felt should occur on that date. His 4/23 posts clearly illustrates that he had a change of opinion.
And, in any event, I don't see why a change of opinion is problematic. People change their minds or form new opinions as data or experience dictates. I did not expect him to angrily lash out.
We all have our pet peeves. For some, it's hypocrisy. Mine is blithe arrogant malice (ie an emotional/physical abuser, Wall St. fraudster, etc.). You don't register in that category at all for me, so I'm rarely disturbed by any of our dialogue, regardless of how adversarial/debating it may seem to a detached observer. Matt values science and his pet peeve is knowledgeable people misleading others or crafting erudite but specious arguments, especially when they are too clever by half. This is as true in his politics as it is in his Magic interactions. The implicit compliment is that he wouldn't be bothered if he didn't believe you were capable of (what he considers) better.
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.
I have no quarrel with any of that. In fact, people should present their views and exchange opinions. What I get tripped up on is that Matt has a tendency to be extremely emotional, reacting in a volatile way to the changing environment, expressing personal distaste, etc. but then claims that he's just a "data scientist," when he regularly conflates those roles.
The problem is that too often he uses his data scientist hat to advocate for his personal preferences, not as a scientist would, but as an advocate does. I don't think Matt does a good job of keeping his personal preferences distinct from his data analysis, but uses the latter to serve the former.
If he could keep those lanes clearer and more distinct, in this conversation and elsewhere, I think it would be to the overall good.
I responded directly since your explanation was addressed to me though as I said above, the recent turmoil is water under the bridge. My main problem with Matt is his reluctance to start watching Twin Peaks. Ryan and I have both vouched for it and yet, despite broadly respecting our acumen and recommendations, he has yet to follow through. Perhaps you could lend some weight to this. IIRC, you've seen and enjoyed the series.
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
Best,
Stephen
@chubbyrain1 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
@smmenen Because, again, you blatantly misrepresented my post. Your argument was constructed on a lie. You could have made that argument without involving me but you did, so I feel obligated to push back and call out your deceit.
What lie? What did I misrepresent, exactly?
What do you think my argument was?
The only point I was trying to make was that players who were playing on MTGO most frequently were more likely than other players to prefer faster DCI intervention. That was my argument, and your posts nicely illustrated that.
You over-reacted. I don't think there is really any reasonable way anyone could read your posts and think otherwise, with the angry and venomous name-calling, etc.
@chubbyrain1 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
@smmenen What exactly did you think I meant by "give them some more time?" How long did you think I meant,
Short answer: More than 10 days, before determining that something would need to be done.
Long answer:
The first tweet I posted was 4/19, which was a Sunday. The second tweet was 4/29, a Weds. Only two Challenges over a single weekend had elapsed between those dates, this one, and this one.
I don't think anything you said in the original tweet was proven untrue in that short period.
especially based on my previous history which you are aware of as you are "psychoanalyzing"?
To be clear, I meant to say "not" psychoanalyzing, which was a mistake on my part, but I hope some folks may have inferred my intended meeting based upon the structure of the sentence (followed by a "but...").
Now a question for you:
Why did you get so emotionally vested in wanting to see cards restricted and/or banned? Why do you get so upset and unhappy with certain Vintage environments? Why do you feel it so deeply?
It's not that others don't care as much as you. But it doesn't seem so transparently emotional in other cases.
I didn't attack you. You made assumptions about my post, what I was trying to do, that were incorrect, and very angrily lashed out. Why?
@brianpk80 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:
I appreciate the affirmation about my concerns, but on the point about Matt's tweets, I don't believe I misrepresented anything.
You're welcome. You portrayed him as inconsistent and contradictory by omitting sections where he specifically made allowances for the facts that he both reserved the right to evolve and predicted it would happen. It is water under the bridge though.
I didn't make any such portrayal, nor indicate that was my purpose.
In one of the tweets, he clearly stated that he felt they should be "given some time," no matter how many caveats he may have offered to that. And 10 days later, in another tweet, he said that he would like to see Lurrus banned.
I didn't juxtapose those two tweets to suggest that he was contradicting himself, or else I would have hidden the date stamp (which would have been misleading).
Rather, I juxtaposed those two tweets to illustrate how quickly he changed his mind. In that sense, it was "inconsistent," especially since he said we should "wait some time," but that wasn't why I presented them. I wasn't trying to portray him as inconsistent.
Quite the contrary. I presented the juxtaposed tweets to illustrate the speed with which someone could change their opinion on something like this, because of how much they were playing online and data was being generated, serving my larger point about the different segments of the Vintage player base and how they experience Vintage.
In fact, if I were being snarky, I would have posted the juxtaposed tweets with the phrase "Vintage comes at you fast. Nationwide is on your side."
I don't really see the big deal. People are allowed to change their mind when getting more or new data. So the fact that he was so defensive and angry and vitriolic about it was quite puzzling, and makes me wonder what was going on there.
It also suggests that people are hyper-sensitive about B&R discussions.
I said on one of the SMIP episodes that there is a huge continuum of players in Vintage in terms of their opinions about what should be done in Vintage, with you (Brian Kelly) at one end and Nat Moes at the other. And pretty much everyone falls somewhere in between.
In truth, such a continuum only illustrates one dimension of B&R policy: how many cards should be restricted and/or banned, with Nat wanting to unrestrict20 and with you wanting to ban and/or restrict more than probably anyone else I've read express a well-formed opinion on the matter.
But there is another dimension which that continuum does not map, or at least, does not map well: how insistently or strongly felt our opinions are, and how unhappy the current B&R list makes us, and how quickly we would like to see change.
While you, Brian, have consistently (going back more than a decade) expressed a desire to restrict and/or ban a greater quantity of cards than anyone else, you've always matched or counter-balanced that preference with a willingness to let things play out or settle more than others, such as Matt.
In other words, while you might be at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of quantity of cards you'd like to see restricted and/or banned, you've always demonstrated a considerable degree of patience in seeing DCI policy reach your preferred policy goals.
Matt, on the other hand, has always been one of the first or earliest voices to suggest restriction and/or outright call for one. My purpose for saying this is not to psychoanalyze him (or you, or Nat), but I do think that psychological profile stands in for a subset of Vintage players, primarily MTGO grinders, who become more quickly disenchanted with the current state of affairs.
Which serves my larger point, and original point, that players who are playing a larger than normal amount of games on MTGO may have a greater than usual tendency to experience, and also express, dissatisfaction with dynamics in the format.