Misinformation [Discussion]

[Ben Kossman]

I'd better start this off by saying that THIS ISN'T DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR ESPECIALLY NOT ON TMD. Okay, having said that I feel like this topic has been completely ignored by the community in general and probably won't ever be "solved" on any sort of permanent way but it's interesting and provocative (to me at least) so I'll see if it gets a decent response.

How pervasive is misinformation in the online magic community? Misinformation is defined as deliberately spreading incorrect information for the purpose of misleading one's followers or rivals to gain a competitive advantage.  Do big name players deliberately lie to mislead those that read their reports or articles? It doesn't seem to be as big of an issue in type one as the major decklists are all fairly well established and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what works and what doesn't. 

Having said that their seem to be three types of competitive magic player.

1. The Scrub: This player is completely clueless, they are the kind of person that would bring a 300 card 5 color deck with 50 lands to a tourney
and argue with anyone that suggests that maybe 60 cards and one or two colors would be more competitive. This player is immune to misinformation given the fact that they are their own worst enemy.

2. The follower: This group of players are actually the "target" for anyone that practices misinformation. They scour the online community for
competitive decks but never really worry about creating their own because it's simply easier to stand on the shoulders of giants and really can't be faulted given the fact that Magic is in fact just like any other game relying on a ever expanding pool of knowledge available to anyone that takes the time to explore it. There's nothing wrong with being a follower aside from the fact that it puts one at the mercy of those that choose to metagame against the tier 1 decks in a given field. Being a follower doesn't at all suggest that the player isn't intelligent, free-thinking, or even successful in tournament play. Simply that they don't have the time to test new decks for hours on end so they take established ideas, tweak them to a given metagame, and go play to win. I fit into this category despite doing my best to ascend to the third and pivotal tier of deckbuilder.

3. The innovator: These players/deckbuilders are to put it in laymen's terms "Da shiznit". They know what they're talking about when and if they talk and other people listen. The reason they're good is either;

A:They are a Jesus Jones style card shark that can win with almost any deck they get handed (within reason of course)
 Example: Kai Budde

B:They spend endless hours testing their new ideas and can quickly disregard bad ideas without prejudice.
Example: Stephen Menedian

C:They have direct access to competing against A or B or can take part in B's testing process


If a deck comes out with their name attached to it chances are the followers will jump on it and consider the innovator's endorsement as unimpeachable evidence of a given deck's awesomeness. This in turn gives this player the opportunity to create
new, unexpected monstrostities coming completely out of left field that ass-rape the metagame and give this level of player the ultimate
advantage over those that choose to skip the development process and for the enticing prospect of easy tourney success.

I've been thinking about this for a while and again let me reiterate that I'm not that concerned about misinformation as I try to at least
test new ideas on a regular basis despite few opportunities to put them through  a tournament (We only play standard here in Ms. and I have to relegate my testing to Apprentice) but in Standard this problem is far worse given the weaker pool of cards and less experienced players.
I guess I have to finish this attempt at an article by noting that it would be fair to consider the idea that this isn't really a problem so much as
an easily anticipated part of any competitive environment. Thanks for reading. Please don't use this thread as an excuse to hurl accusations of
cheating or B.S. as that really isn't the point. 

[Matt]

I've never intentionally misled someone, but I have on occasion gone out on a limb when I wasn't fully justified. I was later vindicated but it might have turned out differently.

[Moxlotus]

I may have misled people before, but that's because I legitimately completely missed the metagame prediction.

I really don't think anyone misleads people.  They may state the predicted meta (and its usually obvious: NE is fish/drain, midwest is Oath/Shoop) and make sure they are prepared for that meta--but that's not misleading anyone.

[Ben Kossman]

I'm a journalism major so I tend to be pretty cynical about other's motives in pretty much any scenario as the one thing I've learned up to this point is the fact that people lie their ass off. I guess you guys are really answering the only way you can given the fact that if someone is BSing their's no way to know
it until one is 0-2 drop or by extensive testing that the average player doesn't have time for. What really got me thinking about this was the previews for
House Dimir on MTG.com.

[Evenpence]

I liked misinformation in the Alliances block.  It was one of my favorite cards.  Has cool art too.  The ability is freaking sweet as well.

  I think it's pretty widespread, honestly, but what are you going to do?

[Matt]

I'm a journalism major so I tend to be pretty cynical about other's motives in pretty much any scenario as the one thing I've learned up to this point is the fact that people lie their ass off. I guess you guys are really answering the only way you can given the fact that if someone is BSing their's no way to know

If you think that, then why even ask the question?

[Jacob Orlove]

There are several crucial flaws in your analysis. First of all, most deck articles these days come after major tournament wins, not before. At that point, there is no question that the deck can top 8 at major events, because it already has. The only way to get people to play a bad deck under this system would be to somehow win with it a bunch, and at that point it's not a bad deck.

Second, people like Smmenen actually get paid far more per year for their SCG articles than they get in tournament winnings. The incentive is absolutely to provide correct and useful information, not to mislead.

Finally, people who play Vintage aren't in it just for the money--that would be a horrible waste of time compared to, say, poker, or a minimum wage job. We play because we enjoy the format. We share "tech" in part to help improve the format, but mostly to get credit for it. No one really wants credit for decks that end up being bad, and it would be totally counterproductive to actually hype up something awful.

[Lunar]

Ive seen a few instances of "big name" people claiming deck A was bad and was a waste of time testing/playing wise when they new full well it was good and then at the next large event place the same "bad" deck into 1 or more top 8 spots...

Ive seen it the other way too when people know they have a solid deck that just happens to lose to something so they will lead people away from playing the nemisis deck for at least long enough to do well...

Is this widespread? No, certainly not...was it obvious (to me anyways) when it was being done? sometimes. Was it obvious afterwards (to me anyways)? Certainly.

Then of course there are just the decks that some people can win with even with 99% of the population saying the deck is crap...so there are some definate question marks in there.

[Vegeta2711]

Ive seen a few instances of "big name" people claiming deck A was bad and was a waste of time testing/playing wise when they new full well it was good and then at the next large event place the same "bad" deck into 1 or more top 8 spots...

Ive seen it the other way too when people know they have a solid deck that just happens to lose to something so they will lead people away from playing the nemisis deck for at least long enough to do well..

Name it. Don't just go sprouting generalized comments. If you make this kind of statement, add clear instances of it happening.

[Lunar]

How would naming any names be a good thing either way...regardless of if im correct or not, taking anybody to task on something would be bad ju ju for both parties and honestly I dont think that anything was done innapropriatly...the fact that some of it was SEEMINGLY wide spread among numerous people and was some time ago wouldnt accomplish anything positive. On the other hand it could just be that the players honestly thought that deck a or deck b was good/bad and just figured out a fix later on down the road...I can think of one specific example of this in how Uba Mask was initially thought to be cool, but not super great, and then later as a bad idea...then all of a sudden here comes Vroman and rips a lot of people a new one with it...

Calling me out here veggie is pointless..ill echo kossmans warning

I'd better start this off by saying that THIS ISN'T DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR ESPECIALLY NOT ON TMD

My comment was just an observation of me THINKING ive noticed what kossman is talking about...ive no proof either way...so rather than cause a big fuss ill just leave it as so. Couple that with the fact that I no doubt would get seriously flamed on here for life if I did and I think ill just say no more.

you will note though that I never really said there was anything specifically wrong with it from a competitive standpoint either (ethical standpoint maybe though)

[Vegeta2711]

How would naming any names be a good thing either way.

If you aren't calling anyone out there was absolutely no reason for it to be said then. It's just a hanging comment that implies it's happened, but gives no factual basis to back that ineference up.

[Ben Kossman]

I'm a journalism major so I tend to be pretty cynical about other's motives in pretty much any scenario as the one thing I've learned up to this point is the fact that people lie their ass off. I guess you guys are really answering the only way you can given the fact that if someone is BSing their's no way to know

If you think that, then why even ask the question?

To generate discussion. People seem to be personalizing what I'm saying but really my point is that the only way to really understand a given metagame is to take the time to test. If a deck dominates against the tier one decks the best way to deal with it is to convince people that it sucks before it becomes popular. An example of this occuring is some of the extremely negative comments I've heard about Sui-Black which also happens to be one of the better budget decks out there vs. Mana Drain.dec and combo. Now maybe the whole Sui Black sux thing was a running joke that I missed but the fact remains
that it's an EXTREMELY competitive deck despite what I've heard some people say. I've heard the same comments about R/G beats which happens to be my favorite deck and finished in the top 16 at Waterbury.

[SpencerForHire]

Alright then I'll shoot this whole naming thing in the foot.  Team Meandeck.   Keep in mind I am not a Vintage player so I in know way have any personal feelings on the matter but they are the best example.  Don't know what I am talking about?  How about the first release of the new Meandeck Doomsday right before one of the big tourneys?  On several occasions Smmemy has posted a list right before a SCG or equally large tourney.  It is not necessarily always for a misleading reason but he has used his big name to try and alter a metagame for a certain deck to have better matchups.  And unless I am mistaken (I don't wanna have to search through several months back) he has confirmed said allegations.  This however is not a bad thing and is almost another form of strategy.  Also, for every Meandeck has done this they have also released a list right before they play with it right before an event.

I feel nothing is wrong with either of the following and it isn't misleading as much as directing the format.

[forests failed you]

B:They spend endless hours testing their new ideas and can quickly disregard bad ideas without prejudice.
Example: Stephen Menedian

Disagree.  If Steve is dismissive of an idea its because he has already tested it to poor results; moreover, he's almost always supportive of new ideas that are actually good, regardless of whether or not he has discovered that particular tech or not.

As for the secretive stuff;  I post all of my lists online before I take them to a major tournament.  I just don't care if my opponents know what is in my deck or isn't.  Firstly, becuase I would love to get paired up against a Burning Slaver mirror match; since almost nobody else has a clue as to how to correctly pilot the deck.  And secondly, there are so many random one ofs in the MD and sideboard, and the deck is so versitile that even against a good player; a person who knows my deck is going to play around stuff that I haven't drawn or isn't in my hand or hasn't been boarded in.

I don't post misleadinly;  I think that most of the good/smart players in this format have a certain amount of intellectual integretity, and also know that their personae commands a certain amount of respect publically.  Nobody would want to jeopardize that by being known as a liar or a cheater.

[Moxlotus]

On several occasions Smmemy has posted a list right before a SCG or equally large tourney.  It is not necessarily always for a misleading reason but he has used his big name to try and alter a metagame for a certain deck to have better matchups.  And unless I am mistaken (I don't wanna have to search through several months back) he has confirmed said allegations.   

I believe you are mistaken.  I believe teams that release decklists before a tournament do so because the list was leaked to people outside the team and they felt nothing to lose by releasing it to everyone now.  Releasing a deck a few days before a tournament isn't going to alter the meta in any way, since noone is going to pick up the deck and bring it to a big tournament with a few days of testing.

Now here is something that I have done that I don't think is misleading.  I have said playing Stax at a SCG Chicago is a good idea because there's a good chance you will do well.  Then I play Oath with lots of SB slots dedicated to Stax.  I don't believe i misled anyone.  I am putting those cards in the SB because I know Stax is a good choice and a lot of people will play it--and it has done well.

[Komatteru]

It is not necessarily always for a misleading reason but he has used his big name to try and alter a metagame for a certain deck to have better matchups.

So it's Steve's fault that he says something and everyone just bandwagons and jumps all over whatever he says without even bothering to consider the meaning of it?  It's really not Steve's fault that half the people can't think for themselves and echo whatever he says.  I seem to recall Steve posting that he thought Vintage was stagnant not too long back and a good half the community just saying "OMG!! Yeah!!"  All those people talked about the lack of innovation like they've ever built a deck from scratch before, and none of them could remotely come up with one reason of their own for why they thought Vintage was stagnant.  What do you want him to do? Not post opinions at all?

Alright then I'll shoot this whole naming thing in the foot.  Team Meandeck. Smile  Keep in mind I am not a Vintage player so I in know way have any personal feelings on the matter but they are the best example.  Don't know what I am talking about? How about the first release of the new Meandeck Doomsday right before one of the big tourneys?

Let's see...Eastman and his crew crafted a very similar Doomsday deck and posted in the closed forum.  As far as I remember, whether Eastman's Doomsday deck was created completely independently was up in the air, but in any case, he was the one to post about it.  Seeing that keeping the Doomsday list secret any longer was completely pointless and would result in Meandeck not receiving credit for their work, the team decided to release the list in the form of an article.  As far as I know, it was planned for the entire team to play the deck in Chicago (much like they had done with Oath at the previous Richmond, capturing 4 T8 spots with it), but after it was released, Steve was the only one confidant enough to still play it.  He made T8.

I really don't know what you're talking about.  The event you hint at never actually happened.

All that happened LONG before I joined the team and I knew the circumstances of the release of Doomsday back then.

So how is that at all misleading.  Steve releases list, writes an article on how to play the deck, and then smashes face with it anyway.

[Ben Kossman]

My point is simply that recognizing and disregarding bad/biased information is just as critical of a skill in metagaming/deckbuilding as is staying in touch with whatever deck is popular at a given point in time.

Alright then I'll shoot this whole naming thing in the foot. Team Meandeck.

I have no idea what Team Meandeck does or doesn't do and given the recent developments of allowing proxies in major tournaments and the
fact that the decks of Steve's that I've played are excellent I'm not advocating any kind of conspiracy theories or anything. I have no problem
misleading an opponent as long as it's within the rules of the game.

[SpencerForHire]

It is not necessarily always for a misleading reason but he has used his big name to try and alter a metagame for a certain deck to have better matchups.

So it's Steve's fault that he says something and everyone just bandwagons and jumps all over whatever he says without even bothering to consider the meaning of it?  It's really not Steve's fault that half the people can't think for themselves and echo whatever he says.  I seem to recall Steve posting that he thought Vintage was stagnant not too long back and a good half the community just saying "OMG!! Yeah!!"  All those people talked about the lack of innovation like they've ever built a deck from scratch before, and none of them could remotely come up with one reason of their own for why they thought Vintage was stagnant.  What do you want him to do? Not post opinions at all?

Alright then I'll shoot this whole naming thing in the foot.  Team Meandeck. Smile  Keep in mind I am not a Vintage player so I in know way have any personal feelings on the matter but they are the best example.  Don't know what I am talking about? How about the first release of the new Meandeck Doomsday right before one of the big tourneys?

Let's see...Eastman and his crew crafted a very similar Doomsday deck and posted in the closed forum.  As far as I remember, whether Eastman's Doomsday deck was created completely independently was up in the air, but in any case, he was the one to post about it.  Seeing that keeping the Doomsday list secret any longer was completely pointless and would result in Meandeck not receiving credit for their work, the team decided to release the list in the form of an article.  As far as I know, it was planned for the entire team to play the deck in Chicago (much like they had done with Oath at the previous Richmond, capturing 4 T8 spots with it), but after it was released, Steve was the only one confidant enough to still play it.  He made T8.

I really don't know what you're talking about.  The event you hint at never actually happened.

All that happened LONG before I joined the team and I knew the circumstances of the release of Doomsday back then.

So how is that at all misleading.  Steve releases list, writes an article on how to play the deck, and then smashes face with it anyway.

I'm sorry if what I am saying seems offensive and I could be mistaking this slightly.  I don't mean misleading as much as influencing decks played.  You can't say that people don't pick up the deck after reading those articles.  It isn't saying that everyone does it but some people do.  As for him not releasing content I say that is a horrible idea.  I really like all the work Steve has done in vintage and have actually asked him to give breaking Legacy a try before.  I am simply saying that the big names have the ability to influence events by stating their opinions on what the deck to beat will be in a particular instance.  It is not bad in any way it is simply a sort of fame factor.  I really ment no offense to Meandeck or to Steve and I realize they are not the only ones to develope decks or for that instance post articles on decks.  It was just an example of the influence of big names on the format.

Another example would be a no namer posting a new deck with no tourney showings versus a big name such as Steve or yourself posting the same deck with no tourney results.  The word of the larger player is simply more respectable so people WILL listen to it.  Regardless if everyone plays the deck or not people listen.

[Komatteru]

I'm sorry if what I am saying seems offensive and I could be mistaking this slightly.  I don't mean misleading as much as influencing decks played.  You can't say that people don't pick up the deck after reading those articles.  It isn't saying that everyone does it but some people do.  As for him not releasing content I say that is a horrible idea.  I really like all the work Steve has done in vintage and have actually asked him to give breaking Legacy a try before.  I am simply saying that the big names have the ability to influence events by stating their opinions on what the deck to beat will be in a particular instance.  It is not bad in any way it is simply a sort of fame factor.  I really ment no offense to Meandeck or to Steve and I realize they are not the only ones to develope decks or for that instance post articles on decks.  It was just an example of the influence of big names on the format.

Another example would be a no namer posting a new deck with no tourney showings versus a big name such as Steve or yourself posting the same deck with no tourney results.  The word of the larger player is simply more respectable so people WILL listen to it.  Regardless if everyone plays the deck or not people listen.

Ok, good.  As long as we're on the same page. 

But it's not really much different in other formats.  In fact, it's infinitely worse in Standard and Extended.  Flores makes a deck and no one else will play ANYTHING else, and "players who know" often scoff at anyone who even tinkers with the deck...  Bandwagoning and echoing whatever a well-known player aren't exactly new to Magic.  The effect on Vintage is more pronounced because there are less people proclaiming opinions, and in all truth, any one person can have a pretty big effect on the format (if they put in some effort).  If I cook up a new Standard deck, it's like impossible for me to shakeup the format with it.  If I cook up a new Vintage deck, and make one T8 with it, it gets a lot of attention and it can change the format a lot.

As for the last point, it's not exactly surprising.  Someone who's been known to build good decks in the past can often cook up a list on theory and have it be something pretty solid -- sometimes, the optimal (or final, whatever) version of the list is often less than 5 cards different, with exception to the sideboard.  Working with the raw product of a known good deckbuilder is just usually a better idea than working with the raw product of someone who just can't be certain about.  Past results often speak just as loud as current results.

I'm pretty sure we're both just stating the obvious here.  I'm not sure how it relates back to the original discussion...or for that matter, what the real point of the original discusion IS.

What's more interesting to consider is when people don't write articles about new decks.  Is that still being misleading?  Tossing a list out there and letting people figure it out for themselves can be difficult, but writing a huge primer on a deck's strengths and weaknesses can be a competitive disadvantage if you ever want to play your deck again.

[Jacob Orlove]

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=20389.0

Here's how the Doomsday scenario went down:

Meandeck develops the deck, with the Desire/Beacon combo. One meandecker's playtesting partner mentions the deck to someone, who tells (iirc) Klep, who tells team The Fringe, of which Kowal was somehow a member. Kowal passes the info on to Shortbus (of which he was also somehow a member), and they tune their own build. When they post it, discussion ensues, then Smmenen takes the deck to SCG Chicago anyway and t8's.

As for "suicide black" being terrible--everyone insisted on playing extremely outdated lists with awful, awful cards like powder keg, sinkhole, and flesh reaver. Obviously people are going to call it bad. If you look for the various discussions on mono-b fish, you'll find a lot of good lists and no random denunciations of the deck. Those lists are just NOT suicide black anymore, though, unless you want us to call every single mono-b deck ever "suicide black".

[Komatteru]

Oh that's right, it was David Allen, not Eastman (David Lawrence).  I had it half right.    I'm thinking of that other incident...

[Ben Kossman]

Maybe I should have simply talked about the real world instead of Magic but since I'm not allowed to talk politics (You guys are no fun  )
I tried to keep my question (How pervasive is misinformation in the on-line community?) as specific as possible. I can't see how anybody can argue that players will do nearly anything for a competitive advantage and reason dictates that misleading one's opponents using every resource available would be a part of that. Obviously anyone that writes a premium article has the incentive to ensure that their work is credible but those of us that just write for the sake of our own ego it's an entirely different situation that really isn't bound by anything resembling ethics or any concrete rules aside from those that the people that run the site create to keep things civil and orderly (Which by the way is the strongest part of this site aside from the fact that I can talk Magic with other adults as opposed to getting flamed by eight year olds like on good old BD.)
I assume those that run this site have had extensive discussions on this topic due to the fact that it's pivotal to maintaining long term credibility
and I would further assume that revisiting the debate in public view would be a healthy way to ensure that people know you guys are working
hard to keep this a premier Vintage forum and a place people can go to get honest answers on improving their game. On the other hand you guys may very well not care what anyone thinks at all and that's just as reasonable of a position given the fact that this isn't really a life or death type of situation by any stretch of the imagination (like certain other instances of blatant dishonesty by people in power that will go unnamed).
I have no doubt that the mods do everything possible to ensure the information here is credible but having a discussion that involves the whole
community isn't a bad thing at all.

[Dante]

Another example would be a no namer posting a new deck with no tourney showings versus a big name such as Steve or yourself posting the same deck with no tourney results.  The word of the larger player is simply more respectable so people WILL listen to it.  Regardless if everyone plays the deck or not people listen.

This is true across any walk of life for just about any activity - people with proven track records get automatic respect/their opinions carry higher weight because of their proven track record and having earned it.  That being said, a proven track record doesn't mean you're always on the right side of the argument (if there even is one) or that you even still put in the hard work/have the same skill that got you there.  That's the danger of "taking it on faith" from people whom you respect - if they've slipped a little bit, you can end up in a really bad spot.

If other people don't want to debate their ideas or opinions and just accept them as fact because of their track record, then they leave themselves in a bad spot by their own doing.

- If John Chambers said the sky was green, probably 10% of wannabe Cisco execs would take it on faith and a bunch of retard IT people would do the same, without even bothering to look up.
-

[Dozer]

I think misleading is not a problem, for two reasons. First, intentional misleading with the goal of skewing a metagame to one's own advantage is next to impossible unless you are a name writer with a reputation to lose. In that case, you just keep tech until after the event, which is not misleading and far less damaging to your reputation.

Second, if you just put a claim out there and you cannot back it up with reproducable facts, noone will believe you. Strong argumentation, mostly based on precedent, is necessary on the boards to get an opinion accepted as worthy of discussion, instead of getting it instantly dismissed. The bigger your previous achievements, the better your previous record, the less back-up you need, but only up to a certain threshold.

I remember the Doomsday incident way back on BD, where the Paragons promoted Doomsday as the next big thing and got a big laugh out of it. Mind you, two years later Doomsday (re-)emerged as a competitive deck, so the joke was ultimately on them. :p That Doomsday scenario was the only thing I can remember where nobody caught a whiff of the misleading. These days, players and especially teams are hawk-eyed enough to spot hoaxes pretty early. For example, if Meandeck posts tech, GWS will test it and come to their own conclusions.

Since misleading always relies on making information public, this information can be tested by anyone. Unlike in our own profession (journalism), where facts marked as truths often cannot be double-checked by the reader due to lack of access to the sources or lack of understanding of the complexity of a given situation, in Magic, decks can be tested by anyone. The only area where I see misleading possibly happening is meta-game predictions; but there, every Vintage tournament player worth his salt should a) be able to check previous results and b) know that environments are very hard to predict correctly and not take those predictions as an undisputable truth anyway.

So, in conclusion: Misleading a player (unless s/he is a complete moron, or even an oxy-moron*) is only possible in the field of metagame predictions, and that is woolly science anyway and everybody should know this. And even there, reputation plays a huge role. The old saying that you don't believe someone who has lied even once, no matter how much truth he speaks, applies here as well. If the source has proven unreliable, the argumentation can be as good as possible, it will not be enough. On the other hand, if a totally reliable source posts something that looks conjured out of thin air, with the added note "trust me", that is not reliable from the outset. Neutral sources need good argumentation, reliable sources need at least some proof, and unreliable sources need really good argumentation plus reliable back-up.

Misleading is therefore unlikely to actually work, especially concerning deck tech.

Dozer

*I've really come to love that flavor text on Ogre Savant.