Everyone Is a Sith: It's not Type 2, but don't be a [chat]

Saturday, December 11, 2010

It's not Type 2, but don't be a [chat]

In celebration of the best MTG tournament format, ever. What deck would you play in a "don't be an asshole" tournament?

21 comments:

_J_ said...: I've no idea what deck I would play in a "don't be an asshole" tournament. The only decks I can play are asshole decks.

Maybe the Coalition Victory deck...maybe.; December 5, 2010 at 4:28 AM
_J_ said...: Also, MA17 needs to write a review of the new Golden Sun.; December 5, 2010 at 4:29 AM
Roscoe said...: Drop some Domain. Give the quirky generalist some love.; December 5, 2010 at 6:24 PM
Roscoe said...: Addendum to Kyle-

One can win and not be an asshole. The trick is to make it SEEM like there's no way in hell that deck should work.; December 5, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Unknown said...: I think I would be forced to run a Pandemonium deck. But even then I couldn't stop myself from using lightning bolts, pyroclasms, and fireblasts. And knowing myself, I'm pretty sure I would find a way to work chainer's edicts in.; December 6, 2010 at 1:26 AM
_J_ said...: "don't be an asshole" tournaments would work best if cards were provided instead of having people build their own decks.

Well, except then it's a can't be an asshole tournament.; December 6, 2010 at 3:01 AM
_J_ said...: Operation P.R.O.M. is up on adultswim.com; December 6, 2010 at 3:05 AM
_J_ said...: THE OUTRIDER: Triana really likes that boy, and they're very happy together. And if you truly love her you should just move on and be happy... that she's happy. Don't ya think?

DEAN: You know what I think? Fuck you!; December 6, 2010 at 4:11 AM
Roscoe said...: That's not being an Asshole, though, kyle.. it's being focused.

Actually, though.. J might be onto an idea for a non-asshole fomattery.. wherein one might STILL be an asshole, but.. "the heart of the cards" let it happen.

Single Massive Singleton deck multiplayer. w/ an alternate way to bring basics into play, like the single pack limited format.; December 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Unknown said...: Would I be an asshole if instead of opting for black and chainer's edicts (my bread and butter) chose to run blue with pandemonium and put in a play set of forces of will, mana leaks, threw in a sol ring, dual lands? Where does the focus stop and the ass hattery begin?

For that matter would I be an asshole for running a panoptic mirror deck with land destruction and plow unders with enough mana acceleration to start the combo turn 3 (locii, sol ring, etc)?; December 6, 2010 at 4:13 PM
_J_ said...: I'm pretty sure that in gamer parlance "acting like an asshole" means "utilizing strategy for the sake of winning".

In one of the T1-doubles tournaments, Kyle and I were about to lose to Roscoe and Tons o’ Fun. To avoid losing, I put dragons into an infinite loop. This resulted in a tie rather than a loss for Kyle and me.

That was an example of me being an asshole, by utilizing strategy for the sake of winning.

I think Kyle is right; without a clear definition of “asshole” there’s no way to assess whether or not any given deck is an asshole deck.

I’m pretty sure Dragons is an asshole deck, but I’ve no idea what is quintessentially assholeish about it. I mean, sure, it’s designed to win the game on turn one without one’s opponent ever having drawn / played a card…but that just means it’s good, where “good” means “likely to win”.

And the quality for assholeish can’t be cost. If someone has a deck with full Power-9 and it’s some bizarre Leery Fogbeast / Flaring Pain combo no one is going to say “omg you asshole with your op’d Leery Fogbeast!

God, Leery Fogbeast was an awesome card.; December 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Roscoe said...: How much of Assholery is tied up in Situation, though?

While Eric fumed at that shit? I get it. It's a tournament. With a prize. And a TIE beats a LOSS. You can force it, you do.

But in a game, for a game's sake? Ought you force a tie, when a tie means nothing? When you can reveal your hand afterwards, and point out that you coulda done the same, that you were OH SO CLOSE to teh Winz?

Assholeery seems to be entirely tied up in a community constructed context. With the obligitory recognition that different communities will see assholery differently.

I'm not sure Dragons IS an assholish deck, in the enviroment it was designed for - a challenger to significant power-fueled speed and combos. It's a bit assholish to drop against a table picking up precons, plus a pair of packs and modifying, though, I'd think. At least, it is if anything's on the line.; December 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM
_J_ said...: "But in a game, for a game's sake?"

We play to win. Because if we aren't playing to win, then why are we playing? Why would any action take place absent that end?

"Assholeery seems to be entirely tied up in a community constructed context."

I'll agree that one person would say that X is assholeish while another would say that X is not assholeish. I just take that situation to indicate one of two things:

1) X is not assholeish in and of itself, given that persons disagree.

2) X is assholeish in and of itself, and some people are wrong.

Discerning whether 1 or 2 is the case requires thought.

"It's a bit assholish to drop [dragons] against a table picking up precons, plus a pair of packs and modifying, though, I'd think."

It's unbalanced, sure. And it is entirley not fair.

But here's a question: If we can describe (play dragons against precons) as
- unbalanced
- unfair

Then what does using the word "assholeish" bring to the situation? What work does "assholeish" do which cannot be reduced to either unbalanced or unfair?

My guess is that the assholeish aspect would concern the mentality / attitude of the person playing Dragons, and that sort of thing is subject to the problem of the unknowability of other minds.

I guess I'd like to know what defines "assholeish"...other than "How _J_ tends to act on any given day."; December 7, 2010 at 2:30 AM
Roscoe said...: We play to win is patently untrue in numerous circumstances. Within the game you mentioned yourself, you set off Dragons, NOT to win that game, but to stop US from winning it, to move further in the tournament.

You REGULARLY fish a deck to win FASTER in later play, or to gauge how certain cards work with each other. That's not winning, it's learning TO win.

And we've all had moments when, frustrated by a player's ex-game ego, we end up playing NOT to win, but to HUMBLE, to drop a person a peg.

What I think I'm saying here is that you're bringing a number of assumptions to the table already, wherein assholishism truly IS meaningless, because you're focused on the game, and not gamesmanship.

True to form, you're boiling things down to playing the cards, and not playing the people? Or, at least, in terms of judgement. In terms of actual play style? You're dangerously skilled at playing people, playing the mental game when you want to.; December 7, 2010 at 11:08 AM
_J_ said...: I want to has sex with her voice.; December 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM
Roscoe said...: .. her name is RAWR BUG.

Did you fail remediary TRAPS and their Recognition, son?

Oh, CRAP.
she talks TO the camera, too!

CRAP!
TRAP!
Same Sound base!; December 8, 2010 at 6:22 PM
_J_ said...: ".. her name is RAWR BUG.

Did you fail remediary TRAPS and their Recognition, son?"

Ok.

Take a moment to reflect upon my dating history.

Alright. Reflected?

Now, figure out if you can answer your own question.; December 9, 2010 at 4:00 AM
Caleb said...: J, I see only one course of action here. You have to make a youtube channel, post amusing and insightful videos, in order to start the love story of the ages.; December 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM
_J_ said...: "You have to make a youtube channel"

...

Mein Gott

So, I just checked my school e-mail. This is the last evening before the final class. And I have e-mails from multiple students who have never talked to me and never e-mailed me prior to this moment, the contents of which are basically:

"OH MY FUCKS I'M FAILING SAVE ME!"

I guess that, technically, this is not the last minute.

Gah; December 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM
Caleb said...: C'mon, J. WWJD?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2PqCRQjUxY; December 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Caleb said...: Shits! me hyperlink!; December 10, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Everyone Is a Sith

Saturday, December 11, 2010

It's not Type 2, but don't be a [chat]

21 comments:

Blog Archive

Contributors of Awesome

Links of Amazing

Labels