B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020

@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.

last edited by Smmenen

@smmenen What exactly did you think I meant by "give them some more time?" How long did you think I meant, especially based on my previous history which you are aware of as you are "psychoanalyzing"?

I think a heavy handed restriction list might as well be highlander since individual restrictions just necessitate other restrictions.

I’ve heard Brian say that Phyrexian Revoker is a restriction candidate while in U20, Phyrexian Revoker is not even a playable card. No one is racing to put 4x Channel into their deck either.

It’s also glaringly obvious that Paradoxical Outcome is a dominant card in U20, yet completely untouched in regular vintage.

There are errors with the current regular vintage restriction list to say the least.

edit Phyrexian Revoker might be a playable card in u20. I was just pointing out that there are so many cards you that could play instead, and thus the restriction isn't warranted.

last edited by desolutionist

@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?

last edited by Smmenen

@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.

I operate as a scientist. I collect data and form my opinions based on it. When the data is obvious, I call it as I see it. The pattern was concerning from the first week but not certain and my 9-post thread was meant to reflect that, but over another week of league results and weekend of challenges, it was clear that countermeasures weren't sufficient and Lurrus was going to continue to increase in prominence. And it did. You asked me for my opinion and I gave it to you. Was I wrong? Lurrus almost hit 80% of the metagame before the banning.

Now this is something that makes me uncomfortable because I have imposter syndrome and I don't actually view myself this way. But you yourself looked at data from the challenges and said I had an over 70% winrate and even remarked "maybe you might be ChubbyRain good". My win rate in the challenges has been about consistent, even in metagames I don't enjoy. My success tends to come from my ability to analyze and anticipate metagames, not really from technical play. My lists are almost never refined and sometimes they are arguably suboptimal in omiting Black Lotus.

I don't think it takes much to look at metagames, play a few games, analyze data, iterate, and reach accurate conclusions. I apply this to B&R. You'll note I'm never one of the first ones to yell for a PO restriction after Narset or Karn or whatever gets hit and I said I didn't think Breach would warrant anything close to restriction when it was printed. I don't look for cards to restrict. But I call it when I see it.

This is the last I'm going to say on it. You are attacking me in these last couple of posts under thin veneer (If I were to be snarky, I would do this...really, Steve?) and I'm not going to turn this into a battle of ad hominens.

Hypothetically, instead of banning Lurrus, why didn’t the DCI try unrestricting cards that would disincentivize the use of Lurrus? (Such as Necropotence, Tinker, Mentor, Lodestone, Karn, Narset, etc.) Wouldn’t the allure of playing those cards present a more diverse metagame that isn’t dominated by Lurrus?

They have said recently they’re interested in experimenting with the restriction list but It doesn’t seem they even considered it here.

edit I actually just emailed wizards customer service about this issue. They're the only ones with the answers.

"In the weeks following the release of Ikoria: Lair of Behemoths on Magic Online, we've observed a rise in the popularity and win rate of Vintage decks using Lurrus of the Dream-Den as a companion. Because of the nature of Vintage's wide card pool and powerful restricted cards, the deck-building cost imposed by Lurrus is less restrictive relative to the payoff of having Lurrus as a companion. As a result, the win rates of several archetypes using Lurrus have surpassed 55% in Magic Online league play, and collectively decks using Lurrus are representing too large of a portion of the metagame with no indication of a shift away from this trend. Therefore, Lurrus of the Dream-Den is banned in Vintage."

Since you can't play Mentor/Narset in the same deck as Lurrus, wouldn't unrestrictions solve the issue they've outlined in their explanation?

Steve, do you recall the announcement when they said they would use unrestrictions as a way of tailoring the metagame?

last edited by desolutionist

@desolutionist The main issue I see with the unrestrictions of things like lodestone, karn, narset is that perhaps people start picking those back up as a 4x instead of running Lurrus. Now we're right back to the same meta with 4x karn/4x narset and what? We have the same problematic WAR meta we had a year ago, as if Lurrus didn't exist and 4x narset decks reign supreme again? Golem/Karn shops just rule again? That doesn't actually solve the current issue, it just backs the clock up a few years to another problematic time.

@thewhitedragon69 said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

@desolutionist The main issue I see with the unrestrictions of things like lodestone, karn, narset is that perhaps people start picking those back up as a 4x instead of running Lurrus. Now we're right back to the same meta with 4x karn/4x narset and what? We have the same problematic WAR meta we had a year ago, as if Lurrus didn't exist and 4x narset decks reign supreme again? Golem/Karn shops just rule again? That doesn't actually solve the current issue, it just backs the clock up a few years to another problematic time.

What is the "current issue"? That Lurrus is popular and prominent but not at all critical to the core strategy in a number of decks that are doing well. I still take issue with this as being the issue in need of addressing.

Shops and dredge being out of favor right now is not because of Lurrus, it is because of a number of things that have rose to prominence over the past few months. Lurrus was the icing on the cake. If every deck uses the graveyard, everyone is going to use grave hate. Dredge cannot exist in that meta.

I was in the midst of assembling a monored Bloodmoon/Null rod list at this time last year in order to play something different (was short on City of traitors at the time). That deck was UTTERLY pushed out of the small fringe of the meta it lived in because it cannot exist in a world with 4x Force of Vigors, end of story. Maybe one day there will be a good inclusion that can deal with FOV and bring it back but until then that deck went from tier 2-3 to tier 9. Where was the outcry that Force of Vigor was too prominent and warping the meta? If I remember correctly that card was basically in every deck that could adequately support its green card requirements. Dredge totally reshaped itself into pitch dredge once Modern Masters actually settled into the format.

@protoaddict FoV is bonkers. It totally should have been GG and a disenchant (maybe even 1GG and exile rather than destroy), not double disenchant.

I never really thought Lurrus was a problem either, but people think there's an issue. Whether their really is or not, reversing time to go back to when there certainly were issues (4x golem, 4x karn, 4x narset, 4x mentor, 4x trinisphere) does not help anything.

last edited by Thewhitedragon69

@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.

last edited by Smmenen

@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. Any point about players changing their minds rapidly could have been made without reference to Matthew, but something compelled you to select him specifically. The misrepresentation was audacious considering how directly the truncated statements right beneath it contradicted the point your curation pretended he was making. We all know that much of the population reads a headline and moves on to the next thing so it is reasonable to expect at least some readers would see the quoted statement without inconveniencing themselves to verify its accuracy; they may even defer to your general credibility as a rationale for not doing so. The tactic appears intended by desire to embarrass or provoke Mr. Murray and it clearly succeeded in the latter.

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.

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.

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

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.

Thank you, Stephen. I appreciate the nuance and discernment. I've reluctantly taken on the role of the gadfly moving the Overton Window but am not an ideologue in practice and am finding my positions are more conservative than some out there. Right now, there are only two cards I would restrict--Paradoxical Outcome and Hollow One. Even Underworld Breach needs more observation.

The fact that Matt is often among pioneers in calling for restrictions, most of which have been realized, is a testament to his insight I believe. He sees where things are headed quickly.

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.

Best,

-B

@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:

  1. He is known for playing frequently on MTGO (and thus comprising part of that group)

  2. 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

last edited by Smmenen

Is Twin Peaks more or less entertaining than the current Vintage format?

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

last edited by desolutionist

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

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

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

We need to unrestrict Balance. I mean, it's got the word Balance right there. 4 x Balance = Balanced format. Ez pz guys and gals.

@serracollector

How would you build a 4x Balance deck with staying power?

On one hand it has to be an artifact centric deck, right? And at that point, is it better than Paradoxical Outcome or other things you can do with all that artifact mana?

It seems like best case scenario, it’s a 2 mana Wrath for PO decks. (Where you probably wouldn’t want 4)

last edited by desolutionist

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

More generally, I don't think it's productive to try to question a person's intent (as you are doing here with me), as intent is difficult to discern let alone establish (as the body of civil rights law demonstrates). I would, however, look at the words people use and evaluate arguments as presented, and not try to read a hidden or obscure motive.

I'm not questioning your intent; I'm asserting it. There was no reason to reference Matt to make the banal self-evident point you were making, which does happen to be accurate. Frequent players adapt and change more rapidly.

Additionally, one cannot spend several days trying to psychologically profile someone and then cry foul when another asserts their own questionable motivations. Given the prevalence of COVID-19 in both California and Pennsylvania, this is certainly not the right time for unclean hands.

😛

Yes, because he was the only player who met two criteria:

  1. He is known for playing frequently on MTGO (and thus comprising part of that group)

Yes, and you lobbed a veiled insult there that MTGO players have some sort of luxury of time & circumstance which is a polite way of implying that they don't have a life. That's untrue for the online players I know. I know I'm certainly not out on the streets of Philly or even "little Philly" (Wilkes-Barre) buzzed from one malt beverage quite as often as I was when I was the prince of the night, single and (dare I say it) a bit more svelt in my 20's, but TBH I've found I enjoy my time with Magic & other players more than other crowds. YMMV.

Again, what did I "misrepresent," exactly?

You made it appear to a casual observer that Mr. Murray was volatile and contradicting himself. As I said above though, it's water under the bridge.

A scientist is, in the ideal, supposed to be objective, neutral, dispassionate, etc. When it comes to B&R policy, these are not words I would associate with Matt.

I have observed a pattern where Matt, more than other players, is quick to call for restrictions and/or bannings. That tendency does not strike me the pattern of a scientist, but rather an advocate. His 4/23 post is on point: it's not a data-based opinion, but rather a personal dislike for a particular interaction.

Leaving Matt out of the equation, in general, yes, I see that issue with self-styled science supremacists and it's a smart observation.

Oh, yes. Twin Peaks is one of my favorite shows of all time, a brilliant opus on the alienation and horror in the underbelly of suburban America. But I doubt that endorsement will help your cause here 🙂

I suspect you're familiar with the studies showing that the stronger the evidence presented that counters an opposing position, the more likely the "incorrect" party is to further entrench into an untrue belief, rather than seeing the light. He'll probably avoid the show now out of spite, for both of us.

Stay safe,

-B

@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:

  1. 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
last edited by Smmenen

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

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.

That is correct insofar as the reason 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. Thou doth protest too much, ami. Hence, I agree, there's no need to question what is already known and again, water under the bridge.

😛

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

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.

Appreciated and classy. Glad to know that wasn't a conscious suggestion.

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. 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.

Like most pseudo-controversies on The Mana Drain, the analysis does not actually call for legal skills. 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. I avoid "the lawyer card" in many personal interactions since I believe non-lawyers find it pedantic and off-putting. YMMV.

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.

Now we're talking. That is some true sass.

I think your larger challenge will be to pry him away from MTGO 😛

I can't even stop him from feeding his addiction to Burger King. His MTGO antics and decks with 1 actual win condition seem harmless by contrast.

Best,

-B

last edited by brianpk80
  • 206
    Posts
  • 12833
    Views