Discussion in 'General CPA Stuff' started by Limited, Feb 9, 2005.
Feel free to name names, DUke.
You know, you're right. I think the problem most everyone had with your reply was its general tone, not the content. Things like "wtf" or to paraphrase "what were you thinking?" Yeah, it's an opinion, but it's an aggressive, confrontational style opinion where your message is lost in the delivery. Is that who you are? Maybe so and maybe not.
As to the bigger question of whether there's an elitist attitude in the CPA? Maybe. For those of us who have been here consistently and posting regularly, I'm sure this feels like a "second home" and when someone comes in with a jarring different point of view, yeah, the first instinct is to defend and jump all over him.
But I also like to think that that's our perogative too. To be honest, yeah, we HAVE been here a while so why should we change? Just like why should you change? Which then becomes a question of how can we co-exist peacefully, if that can be achieved at all? Which then leads to civil communication.
And if you don't like it, you don't like it. You can stay, or you can go. People can get put on ignore lists. The guest writer for one of WOTC's columns yesterday interviewed one of the largest MTGO clans, Over Hell I think it was. The founder stated he started it because he was sick of following other people's rules. Which is basically the premise for all "personal" web sites like this one: it was started by a group of like-minded people who shared a common view and attitude. And for the most part of its existence, that attitude and view has been shared by most members. Which could be seen as "elitist" from those who don't share that view and attitude.
I find it interesting how this post has, more-or-less, come full circle. The thread (from my p.o.v) seemed like a discussion of each playing groups style of play. It also had a lot to do w/ people's attitudes toward these styles.
Unfortunately, it looked like a lot of people got a little too defensive about what was written (and some confrontational language from more than one user didn't help to ease the tensions).
I believe that it all comes down to this: Play any way that you want. Post any way that you want. HOWEVER, never forget that all actions have consequences. Some people might not be too happy if you're a sore winner - or a sore loser (as this thread seems to be focusing on). The same could hold true if you disagree w/ someone you could say "I believe that you're incorrect. Here's why:" as opposed to saying "You're an idiot. WTF were you thinking when you did that. MY GROUP would never do that." Both messages say the same thing, but come across in completely different ways.
Anyhoo, I don't want anyone to leave, be ignored, or get banned just because they want to express their feelings. But, I do want people to be civilized when they are expressing...
"A friendly message from a member of your courteous CPA staff."
I'm looking forward to it. You know I am.
I don't know about elitism. I just know some people use their mouths 10 times more than they use their brains, and somehow think the surfeit of one makes up for the defecit of the other.
People who go on about how superior it is to be a casual than a serious player, whilst simultaneously taking casual magic more seriously than any serious players take tournaments.
Okay, here's a paragraph from an article I'm about to submit to the GASPs March Newsletter (not posting anymore GASP articles here, too boring), it's from the summary part where I take the opportunity to comment on all of the players. So I wanted to point out that "Kevin" has been flying under the radar and is now in first place in our league. He's a High School kid who has greatly improved since last year but most of our folks still remember when he was a "Newb!" and basically leave him alone. When I attack him I get picked on by the others which is okay because I basically ask for it by,....well, literally "asking-for-it".
<note to self: Shut up>
<second note to self: block my posts to myself>
Anyway, here it is:
Now, is this "Dirty" politics or is it okay to say this and be free of underhandedness?
Is what ok, saying "hey let's not cut him so much slack anymore he's pretty good"?
Sounds fine to me, people can make up their own minds whether to cut him slack or not, but you're totally within your rights to at least bring it up.
Here's another scenario:
Me and Matt are considered the best players in our group. Whenever we're both in a multiplayer game, we tend to lock horns and start going after each other, since we consider each other to be the biggest threat. We then start trying to involve others in ganging up on the other. Threats, offers to leave people alone, persuasion, the like. I'm sure this all sounds familiar.
KJ: I like your GASP articles!
CO: Sounds fine if everyone understands that's how the games are played in yuor group.
@TCO: I have been in the exact same scenario.
Player A (from way back at the beginning of this thread) and myself are the ones with the largest cardpools.. I used to regard us as the two best players (recently, this power has shifted somewhat to players like Jorael) and we would do everything to take each other out, to the point of pointing out to other players what keycards were.. ("If you don't take out thisnthat now, he's going to do blahdiblah next turn...").
This kinda ruined the game for me, so I started building tuned-down and outright ridiculous decks.. kinda to see if he would get bored winning (almost) all of the time.
I also kept all my remarks to myself and responded to "attention-remarks" in a possitive way.
Example scenario, taken from actual gaming footage:
Limited is casting *telltale card of so'n'so deck*
Player A: "Ew! Your not playing so'n'so deck are you?". To Newb: "See he also has *randomOtherCard* in his deck and those together..."
Limited: "Right you are! Better deal with it now or suffer horribly!" (Instead of: "I bet your *InsertNastyDeckHere* is packed with enough *savageRemovalcard* to deal with this.. and your only one mana away from setting of *infiniteCombo*...")
Conclusion so far: I lose. A lot. But I'm having fun!
@Limited it's not only the fact that you and player A build good decks, but also know them too well. You both play the decks against each other before using them in multiplayer and both of you will remember most of the deck. If you'd use some 1 vs one decks to play with player A and save your secret tech for the multiplayer nights
Your way of responding works too, BTW. I certainly know that players saying "ooh look at him! he's dangerous!" should be observed closely even more, especially player A...
And what do you mean that the power shifted somewhat?! You better show some respect![/gangsta]
It shifted from Player A and me to you and I would have to say BigBadM, because Player A doesn't play a lot anymore (sits in now and then to kick our butts) and I am not that good anymore. I think you always put a lot of thought in a deck which usually means it is well balanced (and funny.. timesifter, you crack me up) and BigBad might not have a lot of cards, but he knows how to play...
A little off-topic with how the conversation has turned, but on the matter of the original post, my playgroups basically have no policy on "tabletalk." In other words, if we were in the situation you outlined, it would be completely normal for A to blatantly request that B use his scepter to help him out. B of course doesn't have to comply, and the idea of "making deals" for favors is pretty stupid in the end because there are no rules mechanics to make them enforceable, so that never happens. But the point is, we put no limits on the things you can say, the things you can request, and the things you can point out to other players during the course of the game. We don't even think looking at each other's hands is out of order - if you can pull it off with a minimum of horsing around, fine. Since we play for fun - searching more for those wacky, drawn out, hilarious games than we do for victories - it really defeats our purposes to say that A can't say certain things to B. If B thinks that doing A a favor is a good strategy, then fine. If B thinks that doing A a favor is bad strategy, but infinitely hilarious, that's also fine.
On the other hand, when anything goes, anything goes. If Players C and D don't like the clowning around of players A and B, there's nothing to get upset about when C and D starting ganging up on one of them.
It's all in the name of fun, right?
Separate names with a comma.