Casual & Competitive

[HOUTS]

I want to lead this thread into a positive spin of my article: "Scrubs Corner":Casual & Competitive.

So, what did you guys think of it?
More importantly, can we erase the trademarked, and stereotypical, Casual Players (TM) and Competitive Players (TM) to avoid all this elitism in both groups?'
Thoughts/comments on any other topics I addressed?
I've done the homework on this article....now, let's open a discussion on it.


-HOUTS

 

[turgy22]

Wow. I can't believe no one's replied to the thread yet. Allow me to be the first.

...

Um, yeah, that's all. I already replied to the article.

 

[jorael]

I myself never thought I was either Casual TM or Competitive TM.

I play the most funky decks, but most of the time I don't allow take-backs. If you didn't know how a certain rule works, or missed a card in play: too bad. Suck it up and learn from the mistake. And you will get better at this game.

The definition of casual Magic is probably different for everyone, but will also have some common ground.

Side note: Didn't some writers at wizards mention that casual players (as in non-regular tournament players) do very well at prereleases? I guess they can be very competitive... If I look at my playgroup this is very true.

 

[Mikeymike]

I have to read your article before I can give a proper response.

However, on a related note, why does this classification matter so much to so many of us? Over the past year, it seems to me like the focus of the CPA has shifted from a "Casual" approach to the game of Magic to one long semantic debate about the meaning of "Casual". Sure, a tertiary discussion every now and again is a healthy exercise, but this has gotten completely out of control. This debate has become the theme of the CPA, and that is just sad.

I just want to play the game and talk about it here. This endless loop is futile, and has long lost any importance that it might have once had.

 

[TomB]

I agree...^

 

[HOUTS]

"I have to read your article before I can give a proper response."

Um, shouldn't you do this before responding? How can you make your comments, below, without reading it?
?
You say it is unhealthy without reading my article to see if it is. Never start with that and lead in with your opinion.
It's like saying "I didn't read your book, but I find everything distasteful"
Credibility?

"However, on a related note, why does this classification matter so much to so many of us? Over the past year, it seems to me like the focus of the CPA has shifted from a "Casual" approach to the game of Magic to one long semantic debate about the meaning of "Casual". Sure, a tertiary discussion every now and again is a healthy exercise, but this has gotten completely out of control. This debate has become the theme of the CPA, and that is just sad."

Good question!
I can't honestly say that it "matters", but rather that an open, healthy discussion never hurts. However, there are several reasons (factors) for why I brought this discussion back to light:
1. I found an 'elitist' attitude among alot of the 'members'. Why I rather not argue over if you find this to be true or not, I just want bring it to light. I am not the only one who feels this way.
2. Eric's comment, as it has been mentioned in previous articles, about hating/disliking the attitudes of Competitive Players (TM) or Tournament Players (same thing) being snobbish, rude, and brash. It is no different than our own CPA'ers here.
3. CPA-Casual Player's Alliance. Personally, and this can be a good discussion, I find this doesn't apply anymore. There are no "Casual" Players, nor an "Alliance", and if so-what is it against? Obviously the answer is that it's against Competitive play, mindset, and players.
4. I've been on this same rant for quite a while. I've yet to get a decent answer/reply to it. All swings-but no homeruns.
5. This is a game we play. I find it interesting most people don't know how to even define a "game", or understand their own 'win conditions'. If you don't find it interesting-fair enough. But for those who do, let's hear from you!


You say it's "out of control". Really? How so? CPA has produced two articles from me, and at least 4 more from others, on this very debate. The site has drawn spectators in on this topic. The replies to my own (supposedly horrible) article was far greater than before.
If my hate can create this stir within people to get a reaction. Then I say great, keep em' rollin'. Unhealthy=something you dislike?

"The definition of casual Magic is probably different for everyone, but will also have some common ground."

I agree-kind of.

Everyone has an idea of that "casual" is, but not what a Casual Player (TM) is.
What do I mean?
Well, you can do something "casually", meaning infrequently, without putting as much effort into it as you could, and without regard to what you're trying to achieve.
However, a Casual Player (TM) is another case. At least, to me it is.
For some individuals at CPA, a Casual Player (TM) is no different than those Competitive Players (TM) who act snobbish, upidity, thumbing their nose down at those outside their 'group'. They look at acheiving sucess, or being sucessful, not on the same shelf as themselves.

-HOUTS-

 

[turgy22]

I gotta agree with Houts on the debate issue. I've been stalking this site for much longer than I've been a member and I never got the impression that the debate was unhealthy or overwhelming. Maybe in the past two weeks, we've put a few too many front page articles up on the subject, but like Houts said, if it gets people to come here and react, then keep it rolling.

Houts, some questions/comments for you:
1) You say there's an elitist attitude here among CPA members. Can you site some examples or provide some links? I'm not trying to call you out, but I didn't get that impression and wanted to know if there was something I missed.
2) Additionally, I can't remember where I perceived the elitist attitude among tournament players. I'm starting to feel like most writers who have that attitude get pushed out naturally over time. I may have to do some research to confirm this.
3) I think the Casual Players Alliance should be an alliance, but not against competitive players. Perhaps against the competitive mindset, but not against the players or the tournaments. It doesn't have to dominate, but it should provide a sort of safe haven for people looking for unusual deck ideas, game variants and discussion not relating to the latest deck tech. Anyone else have an opinion on this? What should the purpose of the CPA be?

 

[Gizmo]

 

[HOUTS]

Gizmo: Love you. You're doing what I usually do: Hate.
But, then again, you've been wrong on previous debates/topics/arguements/life/etc.

This isn't your thread, go troll somewhere else.

Wave to everyone!
Bye!

Love you,
HOUTS

"Houts, some questions/comments for you:
1) You say there's an elitist attitude here among CPA members. Can you site some examples or provide some links? I'm not trying to call you out, but I didn't get that impression and wanted to know if there was something I missed.
2) Additionally, I can't remember where I perceived the elitist attitude among tournament players. I'm starting to feel like most writers who have that attitude get pushed out naturally over time. I may have to do some research to confirm this.
3) I think the Casual Players Alliance should be an alliance, but not against competitive players. Perhaps against the competitive mindset, but not against the players or the tournaments. It doesn't have to dominate, but it should provide a sort of safe haven for people looking for unusual deck ideas, game variants and discussion not relating to the latest deck tech. Anyone else have an opinion on this? What should the purpose of the CPA be?"

Good questions!

And, I want to work through my thoughts. I am not saying I am 100% correct. Thanks for the 'props' on this debate, but I just find it more of a way to collaborate ideas/thoughts. I have an opinion, as biased as it may be, or incorrect, but at least I will state it, and then try to keep an open mind...you never know when you might be wrong.

1. Where? Oh gawd@! Where to begin? I can point out several instances, but I'll use one now (as I would have to go through past archives of forum posting, and some are gone) that come to mind. Spidey the ModerHATER. The reason I left this forbidden site was the so-called rules of so-called ModerHaters. I used a word, grammatically correct, and some ModerHaters thought I was swearing.
1. Who cares. This isn't a site for kids. And if you are 14, are you going to be like OMFGWTFWOW~!?
2. It wasn't a big deal. He made it a big deal, and so did I.

The attitude is easy to see after several years. I've been here a long, long time. As you can tell there are several fellow, and loyal, HOUTS HATERS. I.E. Ignorant.
Whatever.

2.

"Why are so many Magic players so pompous? I can't figure this out. So what if you're good at a card game? Believe it or not, some people just play for fun. I can't stand reading a story by some random tournament guy who refers to lesser players as scrubs or noobs or barns. Unless you were conceived on the table of a top 8 and born the day before a PTQ that you then went on to win, chances are you started this game just like the rest of us. So try to show a little respect for your past and give a little encouragement to the people that aspire to become better players, because one day they might be better than you"

This, as well a few other comments. I can list them if you want. But your tone is easily understood. I've yet to be pushed out, but I realized what I was writing for this site meant very little. And I also realized I wasn't talking to educated people, but rather kids with uninformed opinions. *shrug*

3. "Competitive Mindset"? But not players or tournaments? See, this is where I get confused...
You're saying mindset, but what does that mean? And, more importantly, how does this seperate from the players themselves and the tournaments they play. And you've mentioned that the 'mindset' is to win, so wouldn't that combine with the players and touranaments?
Furthermore, does the mindset matter? I hate sterotyping. You're taking, from what you described on your article, your small experiences and making assumptions. That is fine, but when you make an broad statement, I am wondering where you are getting it from, and how you came to these conclusions.

-I hope this helps,

-HOUTS-

 

[DarthFerret]

I guess this series of statements will seem out of context with the rest of the prior posts, however will stick to pretty much the theme that I think HOUTS is trying to convey.

First off, and this is only my opinion with no facts to back it up...just opinion. I define a Casual Player (refusing to put the 2 letters everyone else is putting here) as one who conforms to the rules of the game as defined by the rulebooks, not as defined by tournaments, and has no care one way or the other if he is using a Type 1, Type 2, Extended, Standard, etc...(I do not know all the new designations for deck constructs). I certainly do not care myself, and generally speaking all of my decks use whatever cards I feel like putting in them. I also think a casual player will limit himself to 4 of any card, but not worry so much about a "Restriced List" as that is pretty much for tourneys. I have found myself playing with others that I have met (at IHOP or card shops) and been accused of "Cheating" when I pulled out my second Time Spiral (I did state at the beginning of the game that I was playing Casually). Also, I love it when I am being accused of being a "n00b" simply because I use a card or combo that is termed as "Cheesy". This actually happened with a recent MTGO game in which I had an artifact (not sure of the name right now) that let me pull a card from my opponents library and play it as if it were in my hand. He started Screaming (I guess that is what the caps meant) N00B...I cannot believe I am playing a N00b! The funny thing was, he forfieted the game after I started beating him down (and though I used the card I could never use what I pulled from his Library). I have been playing this game longer than just about anyone (Since Beta first hit colleges) and I thought it was funny. I have also seen "Competitive Players" cry when thier deck stuffed full of the power nine falls to a littel blue counterspell/flyer deck.

Yet despite all this, I never have a problem when confronted with an opportunity to play against a Competitive Player. The only difficulty being, that I personally cannot afford to keep buying cards, merely so I can qualify for tournaments. I have well over 10,000 cards, and if that is not enough for me to enjoy the game, then I guess it is time for me to quit playing (not likely!)

So, am I a Casual Player: I don't think I have much of a choice!

Do I resent Competitive Players: On a whole ... no.

Do I think that both designations have factions within them that cause strife: Of Course!

Does this really matter to me: If it did, I guess I would be taking them too seriously and that means that they win.

As to all else: Live Long, Prosper, Be well to one another, And play nice boys and girls!

P.S. Isn't it the goal of the game to win? No matter what kind of player you are? Win and have fun doing it?

 

[Oversoul]

However, on a related note, why does this classification matter so much to so many of us? Over the past year, it seems to me like the focus of the CPA has shifted from a "Casual" approach to the game of Magic to one long semantic debate about the meaning of "Casual". Sure, a tertiary discussion every now and again is a healthy exercise, but this has gotten completely out of control. This debate has become the theme of the CPA, and that is just sad.

I just want to play the game and talk about it here. This endless loop is futile, and has long lost any importance that it might have once had.

Thank you, Mikeymike. I don't think I could have put it better myself.

 

[Arix]

Am I casual? Yes I am.
Why am I casual? I could be a tourney player if I chose. I have the money, the time, and other necessities. I simply choose not to be. I prefer casual play.
Why do I prefer casual play? To me, it's just a lot more fun. In tournaments, everyone only has victory in mind. In casual, everyone only has fun in mind. That's not to say tournament players aren't fun to play - but it is to say casual players are generally more fun.
How do I feel about tournament players? I got nothing against tourney players as a whole. It's down to individual people. If a person I don't like happens to be a tourney player, it's got nothing to do with their tourney-ness. It would make no difference if they were casual or didn't even play at all.
Do I attend tourneys at all? Only pre-releases, because no matter what way you look at it, they are pretty damn casual for a tourney.

Well, there's my gaming-ness in a nutshell.

 

[turgy22]

"Why are so many Magic players so pompous? I can't figure this out. So what if you're good at a card game? Believe it or not, some people just play for fun. I can't stand reading a story by some random tournament guy who refers to lesser players as scrubs or noobs or barns. Unless you were conceived on the table of a top 8 and born the day before a PTQ that you then went on to win, chances are you started this game just like the rest of us. So try to show a little respect for your past and give a little encouragement to the people that aspire to become better players, because one day they might be better than you"

Actually, this quote was directly inspired by an experience at a local comic/game store. I had never gone before, so I didn't know anyone and when I first showed up, everyone was trading. I had nothing to trade, so I sort of milled about and eventually found someone willing to play. He was really nice (I think his name was Jeff), but he introduced me to a friend of his that was into tournament play. I introduced myself and asked him his name and he replied, "You may call me GOD." I proceeded to win two consecutive games (both were multiplayer games, btw: a 3-team 2HG game, me partnered with Jeff; and a 4-player FFA) and he warmed up to me, but he still acted like an a$$ to a lot of the younger guys there. And thus begat that thought. He never even told me his real name.

As far as your fued with Spidey. He's just one guy and he takes the swearing stuff pretty seriously. You say there's an elitist attitude among a lot of members. I'm still not seeing it.

Competitive mindset... I'm not even sure what that means. I'd say winning at all costs, short of cheating; building decks that are played in tournaments; that sort of thing.

I'm starting to realize that most of this probably stems from playing MTGO. I'm usually game for anything, but there are clearly defined rooms for casual decks and tournament practice. And a lot of people keep bringing their affinity and jitte decks into the casual room. I like to try out different deck ideas and don't want to have to account for all the tier 1 achetypes just to have a chance to win. Maybe that's being elitist, but most people handle it much worse than I do.

 

[Mikeymike]

Um, shouldn't you do this before responding? How can you make your comments, below, without reading it?
?
You say it is unhealthy without reading my article to see if it is. Never start with that and lead in with your opinion.
It's like saying "I didn't read your book, but I find everything distasteful"
Credibility?

If you notice, my comment had nothing to do with your article specifically HOUTS, it was about the CPA. I thought the "on a related note" was a dead giveaway, but hey.

That said, the comment most definitely bears on your article's subject matter, but nowhere do I pass any sort of opinion on your article's content.

Good question!
I can't honestly say that it "matters", but rather that an open, healthy discussion never hurts. However, there are several reasons (factors) for why I brought this discussion back to light:
snip
3. CPA-Casual Player's Alliance. Personally, and this can be a good discussion, I find this doesn't apply anymore. There are no "Casual" Players, nor an "Alliance", and if so-what is it against? Obviously the answer is that it's against Competitive play, mindset, and players.
4. I've been on this same rant for quite a while. I've yet to get a decent answer/reply to it. All swings-but no homeruns.
5. This is a game we play. I find it interesting most people don't know how to even define a "game", or understand their own 'win conditions'. If you don't find it interesting-fair enough. But for those who do, let's hear from you!

More on the healthy/unhealthy way below.

3. I actually agree with you that the "Casual" and "Alliance" have left the building. However, I feel the reason is not nearly as obvious, nor as easily answered, as you do.
4. Yes, you have Shawn. How many times must you make your point over and over and over again? We get it. If you have not let it go simply because you haven't rec'd a rebuttal to your standards, then for that I am truly sorry.
5. I used to find it interesting, about 8 debates ago. Again, back to the point of my statement - I don't see one ounce of good it has brought to the site. Let the horse die with a bit of dignity.

You say it's "out of control". Really? How so? CPA has produced two articles from me, and at least 4 more from others, on this very debate. The site has drawn spectators in on this topic. The replies to my own (supposedly horrible) article was far greater than before.
If my hate can create this stir within people to get a reaction. Then I say great, keep em' rollin'. Unhealthy=something you dislike?

-HOUTS-

Spectators are great, and I commend you (and everyone else) for supplying front page content.

However, it's really the CPA community (i.e. these boards) that needs help. Maybe I've missed it completely, but I don't see any new users in the boards who were brought here by the intriguing debates regarding the definition of Casual. My guess is that 75% percent of the people who come to this site are just hoping for a new take on how to use Bullwhip.

That community is now dwindling. And maybe, just maybe, it is partly to do with new visitors coming to this site and reading one thread after the other about the same ****ing thing - as opposed to finding the useful and helpful Magic content that used to propagate our boards.

Does Unhealthy = something I dislike? No, I dislike unhealthy things; there is an inherent distinction between the two.

The bottomline is that the CPA's dying membership is unhealthy. This is just one person's opinion (well, three actually), but I don't see how this never-ending debate helps matters. More than likely to new visitors to the CPA, it is a detractor.

I emplore you (and everyone else), just let it die.
.
.
.
Yet when all is said and done, maybe I'm the one who needs to let go. I keep hoping the CPA will turn back into the tremendous place it used to be for new and crazy casual Magic ideas. There was so much content about the game itself that I could easily (and happily) spend my time focusing on the game instead of the arguments. For whatever reason, that just isn't the case anymore.

 

[HOUTS]

"Yet when all is said and done, maybe I'm the one who needs to let go"

Yes, your reply above, while appreciated, is sumed up by your quote above.

If you don't want to, then please go on to another spot. But, for those who want to actually discuss what this game, the history, definitions, and rather interesting topics, then this for you.

However, Gizmo being a great example, I've noticed those not interested just lack the intellectual capacity, or maturity, for more thought provoking topics.

Keep em' coming!

-HOUTS-

 

[Spiderman]

Boy, where to start... both moderating and replying....

First, the moderation. I think the first of Gizmo's posts of "Don't feed the troll is fine as it states his opinion. Likewise, I will keep the first of HOUTS replies. All the rest will be deleted.

Although on a side note, which probably shouldn't be mentioned because it will probably lead to more off-topic-ness, pointing out the length of time you've been here and the number of posts isn't a sign of trollness; if anything it's a sign of spam. But anyone who's been here knows whether one's posts are truly spam or things worthwhile to say (hence, the CPA Spammer Award). And pointing out the nickname is just futile as it can be changed at any moment.

On topic on regards to replying: Like I said on the front page, the article finally made me understand what people are saying about how's there's no difference between a casual player and a competitive player. And like I said in the same reply, I think the original argument was the difference between a casual player and a tournament player, and I'm not sure where "tournament" turned into "competitive".

I agree that the current name of the site "Casual Players Alliance" has pretty much outlived its usefulness, especially if you consider the reasons why this place was founded in the first place. But if you consider "casual" to be the opposite of "tournament", I think this place tends to draw the more "non-tournament" player here (although we do have or at least had some tournament players), so perhaps the name should be changed to "Non-Tournament Players Hangout". But like Mikeymike said and what I've said all along, it's the slow death of membership that killing the place here.

I'll address the example HOUTS made since it specifically mentioned me:

1. Where? Oh gawd@! Where to begin? I can point out several instances, but I'll use one now (as I would have to go through past archives of forum posting, and some are gone) that come to mind. Spidey the ModerHATER. The reason I left this forbidden site was the so-called rules of so-called ModerHaters. I used a word, grammatically correct, and some ModerHaters thought I was swearing.
1. Who cares. This isn't a site for kids. And if you are 14, are you going to be like OMFGWTFWOW~!?
2. It wasn't a big deal. He made it a big deal, and so did I.

First, this isn't an issue about "elitism of the site/members", this is an issue about submitting front page articles. The submission rules have been in place since day one and have not changed substantially, especially about swearing. And I (and other admins) pretty much only edit articles if they have cursing - you can see plenty of articles up that are grammatically incorrect or contain spelling errors. Swearing is the only time I use "oink", and if you look at any of your edited articles that contain "oink", then there was a swear word. And no, I didn't make it a big deal 'cause otherwise I would have refused to put the article up - all I do is change the swear words to "oink" and then put it up. You chose to leave on your own due to your inability to handle this "editing process".

But still, no elitism here - it's been a ground rule for submission of articles. No playing of favorites of letting other people use swear words or whatever.

 

[HOUTS]

"But still, no elitism here "

Everything you've said above, is a classic sign of it.

Thank you for clearly pointing it out, and killing a fine topic.

GG.

-HOUTS-

 

[Spiderman]

So anyone else agree that adhering to submission guidelines is a sign of elitism?

 

[turgy22]

First off, I do not think that adhering to submission guidelines is a sign of elitism. Good writers should be able to express their views without the use of curse words. All us myopic hacks will just have to live with a few oinks.

Second, I thought of the perfect definition of what a non-casual (or competitive) player is, at least in my perception.

A non-casual player can not enjoy the game of Magic unless he is winning.

Throw out my old definitions, because that's what I'm going with from now on. What does this definition mean? It means that casual players can be tournament players, so long as he enjoys the experience, regardless of the results.

A tournament player who sticks through seven rounds of Swiss after losing his first two matches is probably a casual player, since he honestly enjoys the game and playing with his deck. He's obviously not worried about prizes or ratings.

Additionally, a non-tournament player who downloads net decks and dishes out hundreds of dollars for the sole purpose or never losing a game is probably not a casual player.

Feel free to argue, but this is the simplest, yet most accurate definition I have heard or thought of to date.

 

[Spiderman]

You should write a new article then...