Let's talk about Community
Posted on March 31, 2016, 9:40 a.m. by JWiley129
So, if you haven't looked at the comments on Paulo Vitor Dama Da Rosa's latest article go do so real quick.
There should be two things you notice: 1) people forgetting that Mox Opal is legendary and 2) Mike Lints, this guy.
He's one of the people who is certain that net-decking is evil and shouldn't be allowed and that saying "My opponent was on GW Hardened Scales" or "I was up against UB Control" are pointless statements. But I don't want to discuss that, I want to address the reaction to him.
Most people there wanted to try and "correct" his thinking to be more in line with the norm of the competitive player. I say competitive player because I don't think that many casually-inclined players would read Channel Fireball articles. However, the trolling and counter-trolling of the people there kindof bugs me. Sure, it's easy to make analogies or responses that are intended to poke fun at his, albeit flawed, logic. This is something that we here at T/O have had to struggle with as well, when someone comes in and is stubborn enough to not consider any viewpoints but their own.
I'm not saying we can't have a laugh over what Mr. Lints was saying, because to be honest it is quite funny. But what I am saying is that the trolling and counter-trolling that seems prevalent in today's social media society is something we should try to avoid.
tl;dr - Try to be decent to people instead of resorting to schoolyard bullying tactics.
I think at least a portion of it is due to poorly articulated ideas. If you can't convey something clearly and intelligibly, you're less likely to sway people.
Most of the time, this has to do with grammar. If you can't spell or punctuate and your prose reads like you're still in middle school, people will instantly question your credibility. I've noticed that this makes it very difficult for some people to be taken seriously when they attempt to discuss topics of import to the community.
This idea exactly has been central to several of our most recent and notorious community incidents. Usually the individual ends up leaving, convinced that he or she is right and that everyone else is stupid because they can't grasp the (broken) logic by which the "right" answer was reached.
I try to encourage these people to explain their position further or better if there's potential in what they think.
March 31, 2016 10:04 a.m.
This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum(auto-generated comment)
March 31, 2016 10:05 a.m.
I think a large portion of petty squabbles in the MtG community result from a failure to imagine the other complexly. They don't account for the fact that there is no true way of playing MtG. You want to play tinker-blighsteel at your kitchen table? THere's people that are ok with that. How about some standard deck made of draft chaff? That's fine too.
March 31, 2016 10:07 a.m.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, MTG is a lot like politics. It's a melting pot of different opinions where each one has a different view about what is "correct" and "the way things work". None of the views are ever flat out wrong, which is pretty much the same in politics as well; you can justify a lot of different things depending on your intended aims and the context. But what this does result in is some toxicity in the community if we have individuals who are not as accepting of the only objective fact there is: that there's no definitive right or wrong.
I usually just let people be because (as in the example) if that's his opinion that net-decking is wrong then sure, that's his opinion. The article writer handled it quite well. He took the feedback and then politely explained why he wouldn't change the article (due to his intended audience). And that's ok. Someone has raised an opinion. The author has listened the opinion and responded to it, and that's that. I would say that after that it's time to move on.
March 31, 2016 10:23 a.m. Edited.
Lints is demonstrably wrong about the article being useless; the point of a keep or mulligan article covering a ton of different decks is so you can see the thought process behind the decision.
Magic, however, does have a nasty community in a few circles, and I actually think netdecking is part of the reason why. Netdecking significantly decreases your emotional attachment to your deck--you didn't make it, after all--and tends to significantly increase the cost of the deck. The combination means a player using or playing against a netdeck is way more likely to get snarky than a pair of homebrews.
March 31, 2016 10:46 a.m.
Egann: 
I netdecked my first modern deck. It's my baby. Seriously. I love the thing. I think many of us fall in love with our decks whether we create them from start to finish, or only part of them, or just netdeck.
March 31, 2016 11:05 a.m.
I netdecked modern Affinity when New Phyrexia came out and I still play the deck because I enjoy every detail of it. It is the deck I played with the most and I tinker with all the time to adapt my main and sideboard for competition. It is a staple deck yes, but I optimize it personnaly to go to tournaments. I got many successful finishes with it and I used some the store credit to build an overall netdecked Brago EDH to play with friends who only play Commander and I love the thing, it's a blast to play. Saying netdecking reducing the emotional attachament is flat out wrong. And even a netdeck, you build it with time, money and effort. Everyone is free to build whatever deck they want, there is no "wrong" way to build a deck.
March 31, 2016 11:52 a.m.
For one player, coming up with some Waste Not deck after weeks of brewing might be just as rewarding as tweaking the number of Abrupt Decay and Terminate in their jund build is for another player. People become emotionally attached to their decks through a number of different way. Besides, even if netdecking somehow robbed people of caring for their decks, one could argue that these attachments have no place in competitive play.
March 31, 2016 12:14 p.m.
I'll never understand the complex that makes people think they have to shove "proper" opinions down the opposition's throat. I feel like the ability to look at yourself and others from an external viewpoint requires finding some hidden key that opens a secret chest that gives a fairy that leads you through an unmapped area to find the three sigils that open an ancient vault where you can unlock the part of your brain that allows you to have that kind of perspective.
Like it feels like its that hard for some people and I don't understand it. This isn't a Magic problem. Or a community problem. It's a people problem.
What's worse is when a group tries to openly discuss a subject, many participants already conscious of varying opinions, and there's always that ONE ASSHOLE who thinks that anybody simply expressing their differing viewpoints is an attack on their own - so obviously they must vehemently defend it and berate you and your way of life.
I repeat: people suck.
March 31, 2016 1:05 p.m.
Things don't have to be "correct" but more often than not, a netdeck is a "proven" way to play. As in those exact combination of cards had and will continue to have success in the hands of a competent player. That is reality. You don't have to like it but you'd be foolish not to at least acknowle it as fact which is backed by real data that is available for all to see via top 8s and 32s.
March 31, 2016 2:04 p.m.
It's the internet, I thought it was "company policy" to always be berating and belittling to people who diagreed with you. /s
Jokes aside Mike was pretty offensive with how he voiced his opinions, and did so in a forum dedicated to people who are against his mindset. It's not right that he be grilled in response, but it's tough to tell due to occasionally poor wording and inability to hear tone/read body language over text, and a vast majority of the responses he got were constructive.
March 31, 2016 2:22 p.m.
So I spent some more time looking at what this guy has written, and he's completely on the opposite side of the consensus. (NOTE: He's talking about Limited here folks, not Standard)
1.) He thinks that self-mill is bad and that, essentially, Tome Scour is a 5-for-1.
4.) In OGW, that Boulder Salvo was terrible if cast for .
I want to take him seriously, but I just can't...I just can't.
March 31, 2016 2:24 p.m.
I'm mad you left out his comments on the new Milligan rule. Regardless I can't tell if he's doing research for an Onion article.
March 31, 2016 2:26 p.m.
Oh yeah, how he doesn't use the Vancouver mulligan b/c it's "cheating"? I find it hard to cheat when it's in the rules that you can do it.
March 31, 2016 2:30 p.m.
Did it ever occur to people that maybe this stubborn guy was just taking the piss out of everyone responding?
March 31, 2016 2:42 p.m.
I stick by my statement. There are combinations of cards that are proven to be better than other combinations of cards. It's okay to go against that but probability of success won't be with you if you do.
March 31, 2016 2:43 p.m.
Also, I just checked it out. This guy seems legit. Sigh...people.