Yes, my deck is bad

[Moxlotus]

This idea isn't a problem in isolation.  But, I'd like you to look at this from a different angle:  you're a new player, you've just discovered t1, and you make a monoblack deck.  You post it on TMD and your first responce comes from an internet columnist that you admire squarely telling you that your deck is horrible.

I realize that that "problem" has been dealt with, but it's not just one person.  It's a whole culture here.  To a man, we have the options of ignoring the obvious "newb" post, providing useless criticism, or actually helping the person along.  By providing intelligent and considered criticism (or even just linking to it) we provide a valuable service to the community.  The problem is that we don't consider that we all lack foresight.  We're human and this game and format are horribly underanalyzed.  Sometimes, (as shown above) we dismiss ideas out of hand correctly.  Othertimes it turns out later that we argued against Dark Confidant, Psychatog, or Jester's Cap and rightly now look like idiots for it.

The fault lies entirely with the new player, if he posted in the Open Forum.  He should have read the rules.  More than likely, the deck would get moved to the Improvement Forum. 

Calling out someone's deck and saying it is terrible, and saying why its terrible is a good thing.  It won't give them any false hope entering a tournament.  Hopefully, they will change decks.  If they read the posts, they will be able to learn WHY the mono black deck featuring Juzams, Scutas, and Lord of the Pit won't stand up to Vintage decks. 

I don't recall very many Full Members or Vintage Adepts flat out calling decks shit without giving any explanation.  You say this as though it frequently happens, but I don't recall it ever really happening.

[AmbivalentDuck]

This is one of a few examples that I'm familiar with.  Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it's probably the least controversial.  I can pull up similar-ish examples for others that aren't quite as extreme, but I'm certainly I'd ruffle feathers in the process.  If I can get assurances that pulling up quotes (with links to put them in context)won't result in my being warned/banned, I'll be happy to grab them.  Or even if ground rules can be established for grabbing them, but restricting commentary on them.

This deck is AWESOME!  It should have absolutely no trouble beating Pitch Long.



@ Mods - sorry, I couldn't resist.

Sarcasm, jerkitude towards new posters and spam are unacceptable. Verbal warning.

-Hi-Val
TMD Moderation Staff

[dicemanx]

Othertimes it turns out later that we argued against Dark Confidant, Psychatog, or Jester's Cap and rightly now look like idiots for it.

Actually, the only "idiot" is the person that dredges such things from past threads and flings it in someone's face.

Let's take your example of Anusien's criticism of 1st turn Dark Confidants. You disagreed with his analysis, and in fact it was later demonstrated that he was indeed incorrect on that point (if I'm misinterpreting what was said or who said it, then my apologies, and treat it as a hypothetical instead). Anusien probably came to that conclusion out of theoretical considerations or maybe even some limited playtesting where things went wrong or perhaps even playing a misbuilt Confidant deck. These things happen. Perhaps he was a little too sure of himself and used language that was too strong, but the idea of these forums is to allow for a collective pool of strong players/analysts/theorists to weigh in with their opinions and NOT pick apart the manner in which they convey those ideas. Some will allow for possibility that they might be incorrect, and some will be decidedly sure of themselves. It shouldn't really matter though to the person seeking that advice - you cannot take things on blind faith for one thing, and if you strongly disagree with some views and are able to prove your point in the ultimate setting - the tourney - then that is the best way to "win" arguments. And guess who lost out? The person that was so convinced that the idea wouldn't work. Was he wrong to criticize that idea, and should he be called out on it and branded an idiot? Certainly not. Most of the deck discussions revolve around theoretical considerations because its simply not possible to scrutinize and playtest everything, which means that there is a possibility that the advice is incorrect.

If your advice to the experienced TMDer is to "watch your language and what advice you give", then I'll also offer the advice to the poster of a new deck to "grow a thicker skin" and "don't expect to be coddled like a 6 year old".

Well, there is the Flores-type as well.  Flores has tournament experience, but he's not a good player, and, in fact, if you watch him play, you'll be impressed at some of the stuff he does.  Despite that, Flores knows how the game works, how to analyze metagames, and, as a result, builds the best decks in the format.  He might not be able to make them win himself, but you hand a Flores deck to a skill player, and you will see results.

I wonder if Flores himself is the only member of the "Flores Type" individuals. I'm not entirely sure we have any "Flores types" here whose advice we're missing out on. Plus, as you said Flores does have tourney experience, and as I understand it he's much better than the average player despite his "bad player" nickname.

[Vegeta2711]

I wonder if Flores himself is the only member of the "Flores Type" individuals. I'm not entirely sure we have any "Flores types" here whose advice we're missing out on.

Brassy. I know I'm better at building decks and metagaming than I am at playing in almost every format.

Actually, the only "idiot" is the person that dredges such things from past threads and flings it in someone's face.

Quoted for massive amounts of truthery. I'm so tired of people bringing up shit when OMG THEY WEREN'T RIGHT, HAR HAR, HINDSIGHT IS 20/20 BITCH. Have you ever bothered reading set reviews? Ever? You notice how many times people are just completely off on card evaluations? Yet most people aren't going to bring that up the next time usually. Because it's HARD to make accurate projections/predictions about how much impact something will have when you have maybe yourself or a few other people to base your data and assertions off.

[Machinus]

Because it's HARD to make accurate projections/predictions about how much impact something will have when you have maybe yourself or a few other people to base your data and assertions off.

The converse to this is that successful predictions are meaningful. Being able to see the value in cards is a valuable skill.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Actually, the only "idiot" is the person that dredges such things from past threads and flings it in someone's face.

Quoted for massive amounts of truthery. I'm so tired of people bringing up shit when OMG THEY WEREN'T RIGHT, HAR HAR, HINDSIGHT IS 20/20 BITCH. Have you ever bothered reading set reviews? Ever? You notice how many times people are just completely off on card evaluations? Yet most people aren't going to bring that up the next time usually. Because it's HARD to make accurate projections/predictions about how much impact something will have when you have maybe yourself or a few other people to base your data and assertions off.

Everyone knows that set reviews are pure speculation.  It's a bad example.

And I'm not trying to fling anything in anyone's face.  I'm stuck picking quotes to support my point anecdotally.  I'm picking the examples that I'm most familiar with, and I'm grabbing them from so far in the past so that they aren't controversial.  We've had enough private testing/tournaments/theoretical analysis/whatever in the meanwhile that the end result is pretty clear.

My point, for those skimming (using entirely fictional examples):

GOOD
"I don't think Gifts Ungiven belongs in control decks because it isn't efficient enough to compete with Fact or Fiction"
"My initial testing suggests that Gifts Ungiven grabbing Recoup, Black Lotus, Tinker, and Yawgmoth's Will is very strong."

BAD
"Gifts Ungiven in a control deck?!?!?  Fact or Fiction obviously."
"Everyone thinks Gifts Ungiven is strong deck.  It's clear that it will be tier I."


In academia, the wording that you happened to use when you were wrong makes or breaks your career.  There's nothing wrong with being wrong and I do my fair share of it.  That doesn't change the fact that if we want a culture of harsh criticism to be useful, it's need to be accurately worded.

And to be honest, if I owned the site I would warn people retroactively for being wrong in an unproductive way.  Academic journals are productive whether or not the conclusions happen to be correct because the test results are made public (though almost solely conducted privately) and the analysis is supported explicitly by current and/or past results.  The laws of physics and the fundamentals of social, biological, and chemical systems don't change terribly often, however.

We, as a community, place too much faith in past results.  Past results (to a one) have a damn good chance of becoming meaningless every time a new set comes out or the rules are changed.  As such, harsh wording against new ideas is almost never meritted when the ideas are intelligently presented.  This includes research.  Obviously, it's very unlikely that Sui 1998 will ever have a place in Vintage again, someone "reviving" it should have compelling reasons to support their attempt.  And then the harsh criticism shouldn't be towards the idea, but rather their lack of research and support.

Similarly, if you don't believe someone's playtest results, go duplicate them or just ignore the post.  It's likely that someone will challenge the results experimentally, and if nobody does...it'll be a very quiet thread and slowly sink.  Feel free to warn/ban/lock the thread if it gets bumped for stupid reasons.

It's not a matter of not hurting feelings.  It's a matter of not contributing your weight to an incorrect stance.  There's a very good argument that "science" is the quest to be as unwrong as you possibly can given the evidence available.  If we actually want to be "academia-like" or "science-like" let's pretend our reputations actually depend on not only what we say but how we say it.

[Bram]

And to be honest, if I owned the site I would warn people retroactively for being wrong in an unproductive way.

Wait - what? That's nonsense. "In retrospect, you were wrong, and if you're ever wrong in retrospect again, we'll ban you!" That's beyond ridiculous.

And stop comparing TMD with academia. There's a lot of things wrong with academia, too. The 'science = publishing' axiom will be its undoing, IMO. I don't know about you, but I'm actually in academia, as well as partly responsible for the operation of this site. Lemme tell you're the two are fundamentally incomperable, and even if they were not, I wouldn't be as eager as you apparently are to uncritically use the one as a model for the other.

"science" is the quest to be as unwrong as you possibly can given the evidence available.

That, too, is nonsense. I know it's what most scientists tell themselves and the world it's what they're doing, but it's not (read up on this, for example, and pick up "Science in Action" by Bruno Latour if you're interested in what scientists really do).).

[Komatteru]

In science, you can ultimately prove using mathematics whether or not something is true.  You can measure things in laboratories and obtain irrefutable evidence to support your claim.  Mathematics is a pretty solid thing to base one's theories on, as it seems to have worked pretty well for some 5000 years.  In Magic, you can't actually prove whether something is better or not, given the wild variances and random nature of the game.  Well, actually, you can probably prove a lot using Markov chains and other stochastic modelling processes, but that goes far beyond what most people can do.  In fact, given that probabilistic models only let you prove what is most likely, you can't actually prove anything definitively.  For example, things like reconstruction algorithms for signal processing actually work based on what is most likely to have occurred.  It ends up being correct almost all the time because you know a lot about what is going into the system, and you can design your system to make the most of that (for instance, human audible spectra is 20 Hz-20kHz, so if your system has problems with frequencies of 15 Hz, no one cares), and if something sufficiently strange goes into the system, Lord only knows what will come out.  How accurate and dependable your output is depends on your modeling and prediction skills, but no matter how good you are, you can never be 100% certain when random elements are part of your equation.

[Moxlotus]

1. Steve was banned for his post.  I'd say that shows the TMD administration isn't tolerant of that.

2.
 

And to be honest, if I owned the site I would warn people retroactively for being wrong in an unproductive way. 

 

So would you ban yourself for anything you have ever said that was wrong, like no Ancestral in a deck with blue?  You are complaining people get yelled at for ideas now, but you would punish people for hindsight?!?!?!  You sir, are being ridiculous

Stop comparing TMD to academia.  Professors do not publish anything nearly as often as people try to build new decks or predict something.  An internet message board is not a peer reviewed article.

[AmbivalentDuck]

@JD

In molecular biology, "proof" is little lines on a gel that are really easy to fake.  So, their evidence is never irrefutable.  Similarly, good luck modeling most cellular mechanics mathematically, nonlinearities get tough to analyze really quick.  Models are usually limitted to investigated one behavior or another and are seldom considered "proof" of anything. Still, molecular biology can get along (kind of, sort of, mostly) as a science.

I have no idea where to go with that other than that science doesn't require proof, just evidence.

@Bram

Yes, academia is miles from optimal or perfect.  I'm trying to distill the positive traits and port them over.  As far as fundamentally incompatible, I'd be very interested in hearing and learning from your experience.  My guess right now is that it would be difficult to shift the culture but not impossible.  It's anyone's guess if it would increase the rate of innovation.  I'm willing to bet 2:1 that it would increase the player base.

I don't feel that your summary of my statement (quoted above) is fair or accurate.  "In retrospect, you were wrong, and if you're ever wrong in retrospect again, we'll ban you!" isn't the paradigm I was going for.  More like, "You overstated the strength of your position AND happened to be wrong at the time, don't do it again."  There's nothing wrong with being wrong.  It's more that overstating your position is bad, but only concretely punishable when it happens to be wrong.

@Moxlotus

1.  Like I said, I picked an example that wasn't controversial.   I was responding to "I don't recall it ever really happening."  There are more examples, but they're less clear cut and would certainly piss of the people being quoted.

2.  It's an easy point to show.  If you're up to it, 20 games taking turns going first.  4 turns (for each deck) per game.  If all of your win conditions aren't gone by turn 4, you win.  Otherwise, Extract.dec wins.  10 games with Ancestral in the starting hand.  10 games without.  Since the test is on Ancestral Recall and not the quality of Extract.dec in the current meta, the comparison will be on whether or not more games are won with(out) the Ancestral.

I think a Gifts build would be a fair deck to test against.  I also think that modifying the deck to include Hide//Seek will up the win percentage in general and thereby make the win/loss rate easier to compare since the question is Ancestral's impact on the rate, not the rate itself.

Your choice of pilots for the two decks.  Or any assortment of pilots for each "match."

[diopter]

And to be honest, if I owned the site I would warn people retroactively for being wrong in an unproductive way.

So would you ban yourself for anything you have ever said that was wrong, like no Ancestral in a deck with blue? You are complaining people get yelled at for ideas now, but you would punish people for hindsight?!?!?! You sir, are being ridiculous

In academia, the wording that you happened to use when you were wrong makes or breaks your career.  There's nothing wrong with being wrong and I do my fair share of it.  That doesn't change the fact that if we want a culture of harsh criticism to be useful, it's need to be accurately worded.

What AmbivalentDuck is saying is that if a person were to state his or her views unproductively (e.g. without reasoned logic and with unfounded harshness), then he would warn them should they be wrong. Like he says, there is nothing wrong in being wrong, but everyone should make the effort to put forth at least a modicum of reason and thought.

Personally, I think AmbivalentDuck's argument applies even if a person is right. If a TMDer's point is right in hindsight but his or her language was along the lines of "how do you expect this deck to beat [insert Tier 1 deck here] when you only run [insert some number of disruption cards here]???"... they are most likely right, but they don't contribute any insight at all as to why they are right or think they are right.

[Moxlotus]

Like he says, there is nothing wrong in being wrong, but everyone should make the effort to put forth at least a modicum of reason and thought.

I believe this is why the rules state that all posts must have a sufficient amount of content.

If a TMDer's point is right in hindsight but his or her language was along the lines of "how do you expect this deck to beat [insert Tier 1 deck here] when you only run [insert some number of disruption cards here]???"... they are most likely right, but they don't contribute any insight at all as to why they are right or think they are right.

Would it help if that sentence was followed by "disruption is key to beating decks.  Without disruption, opposing decks will run over you.  Without disruption, you have no way to protect yourself from your opponents answers."  That's a pretty basic leap of logic to make and if someone can't figure it out they are most likely an idiot. 

Duck--I'm astounded by your logic.  Apparently if your opening hand doesn't have an Extract, then having an Ancestral to give yourself 3 chances to find extract isn't a good thing to have.  Its really basic.  Obviously, it would be nice to have a hand of triple Extract or something, but that just doesn't happen.  Threats get neutralized.  Or even if you get off a first turn extract, you still need to find more.  Card drawing does this real well, and Ancestral is the best card drawer in the game.

[diopter]

If a TMDer's point is right in hindsight but his or her language was along the lines of "how do you expect this deck to beat [insert Tier 1 deck here] when you only run [insert some number of disruption cards here]???"... they are most likely right, but they don't contribute any insight at all as to why they are right or think they are right.

Would it help if that sentence was followed by "disruption is key to beating decks. Without disruption, opposing decks will run over you. Without disruption, you have no way to protect yourself from your opponents answers." That's a pretty basic leap of logic to make and if someone can't figure it out they are most likely an idiot.

1.) My example was used to illustrate the problem AmbivalentDuck was talking about - the lack of logic and reason that is evident in some posts on TMD, both by people who present new ideas and by people who provide criticism for ideas. Regardless...

2.) Your statement is not as simple as you make it. Speed is also key to beating decks, and the balance (or imbalance) of speed and disruption is often what differentiates archetypes and determines their viability. Sometimes disruption is not enough - it can be ignored or overpowered, or answered with an opponent's disruption. Sometimes a deck's strategy can be improved by adding proactive threats that read "deal with me or lose". If it so happens that these threats are actually proactive disruption - a la Chalice of the Void, or Tormod's Crypt - then that's OK. The line between threat and disruption is blurred in Vintage. But that threat can also be something that isn't necessarily disruption, such as Savannah Lions, or Extract. But, not to derail the thread into an argument about the merits of disruption...

3.) The attitude that "if they don't understand, they are an idiot" is never, ever conducive to intelligent discussion. If someone is not displaying the intelligence that is expected of them, then they can be ignored, or constructively reminded to think through their logic, or thought process.

[Machinus]

"science" is the quest to be as unwrong as you possibly can given the evidence available.

That, too, is nonsense. I know it's what most scientists tell themselves and the world it's what they're doing, but it's not (read up on this, for example, and pick up "Science in Action" by Bruno Latour if you're interested in what scientists really do).).

So you know most scientists better than they know themselves?

Making such claims is just as bad as the abuse of scientific language by the postmodernists (or anyone else), and in fact represents the same mistake that they claim realist science is guilty of. A truly scientific approach to the question of influences on science would not be prejudiced about the outcome, and would never claim to have a proven result.

To address the thread - magic can never meet the standards of academic study. That is a philosophical guide for site behaviour and nothing beyond that.

[Moxlotus]

3.) The attitude that "if they don't understand, they are an idiot" is never, ever conducive to intelligent discussion. If someone is not displaying the intelligence that is expected of them, then they can be ignored, or constructively reminded to think through their logic, or thought process.

Isn't saying "this deck can't beat deck X because it doesn't have any disruption" constructively reminding them to rethink their thought process on how that match plays out?

[dicemanx]

1.) My example was used to illustrate the problem AmbivalentDuck was talking about - the lack of logic and reason that is evident in some posts on TMD, both by people who present new ideas and by people who provide criticism for ideas. Regardless...

It's already in the rules that posts without significant content are frowned upon and/or will result in (verbal) warnings.

If you see such an instance that hasn't been addressed by the moderators, then use the "report post to a moderator" button. They can't track down everything and rely on you to help them out.

2.) Your statement is not as simple as you make it. Speed is also key to beating decks, and the balance (or imbalance) of speed and disruption is often what differentiates archetypes and determines their viability. Sometimes disruption is not enough - it can be ignored or overpowered, or answered with an opponent's disruption. Sometimes a deck's strategy can be improved by adding proactive threats that read "deal with me or lose". If it so happens that these threats are actually proactive disruption - a la Chalice of the Void, or Tormod's Crypt - then that's OK. The line between threat and disruption is blurred in Vintage. But that threat can also be something that isn't necessarily disruption, such as Savannah Lions, or Extract. But, not to derail the thread into an argument about the merits of disruption...

This argument took a massive wrong turn once it boiled down to Ancestral OR Extract. Why not Ancestral AND Extract?

3.) The attitude that "if they don't understand, they are an idiot" is never, ever conducive to intelligent discussion. If someone is not displaying the intelligence that is expected of them, then they can be ignored, or constructively reminded to think through their logic, or thought process.

Phil already addressed this, but I also want to add that posters on this site also have certain responsibilities - they should educate themselves with regards to site rules, codes of conduct, and some basic theory, resources that are linked to in the stickies. If a poster doesn't want to make an effort educating himself on the basics, why should the burden fall on the rest of us? This is an issue of accountability, and new posters need to hold themselves accountable to a certain extent for their conduct, post quality or understanding certain basics. Phils' chastizing and branding someone as an "idiot" translates to me as flagging that person as someone who doesn't hold himself accountable. I hold people here to a higher standard than I would on sites such as SCG or MTGS and I'm not here to do something for others that they can already do for themselves.

GOOD
"I don't think Gifts Ungiven belongs in control decks because it isn't efficient enough to compete with Fact or Fiction"
"My initial testing suggests that Gifts Ungiven grabbing Recoup, Black Lotus, Tinker, and Yawgmoth's Will is very strong."

BAD
"Gifts Ungiven in a control deck?!?!?  Fact or Fiction obviously."
"Everyone thinks Gifts Ungiven is strong deck.  It's clear that it will be tier I."

Let me revise this:

GOOD
"I don't think Gifts Ungiven belongs in control decks because it isn't efficient enough to compete with Fact or Fiction"
"My initial testing suggests that Gifts Ungiven grabbing Recoup, Black Lotus, Tinker, and Yawgmoth's Will is very strong."

NOT GREAT, BUT SOMETHING (or at least a starting point for discussion)
"Gifts Ungiven in a control deck?!?!?  Fact or Fiction obviously."
"Everyone thinks Gifts Ungiven is strong deck.  It's clear that it will be tier I.

BAD
<no feedback or empty congratulatory feedback>

See, perhaps the type of feedback that you're criticizing warrants that criticism, but did you not consider the idea that you can ASK for explanations/elaborations? This goes back to accountability: even when others might not be so forthcoming with justification(s) for their contention(s), if you suspect that they have a possibly worthwhile reason for making their claims you might want to make an effort to extract that information. This is also why your comparison between science and what we do here on TMD fails to some extent - while a scientic paper cannot make contentions without adequate support as determined by peers in that field of study, TMD consists of continuous dialogue. You can make an unsupported claim, be challenged, and then provide supporting evidence or rationale. The need for formality required in publishing papers is not critical here and we don't need to push things in that direction, especially when your solution involves punishment to deter deviation from formality. We can encourage posters to provide solid arguments (contention(s) backed by supporting evidence, which is either a rationale or actual example(s)), but we should also recognize that any feedback is often better than nothing and said feedback has an opportunity to blossom into fruitful discussion.

I recall some threads where unsupported (and at times outlandish) claims ultimately generated excellent discussion. Sometimes it was because the initial statements were quite controversial and stirred up a lot of interest, and ultimately the reasons for those claims were backed up or defended. One person that I can identify doing this was Smmenen - he started a lot of threads making some very bold claims perhaps without the requisite backing at first, but those threads generated much interest because of the controversy involved. As a consequence, Steve's threads were (and still are) some of the longest threads on TMD. Now I know that there are a number of other contributing factors, but the fact that Steve was so willing to challenge conventional wisdom and plunge headlong into controversy at times without adequate support for his contentions led to some great discussion and amazing discoveries. 

[diopter]

This argument took a massive wrong turn once it boiled down to Ancestral OR Extract. Why not Ancestral AND Extract?

For clarification, my argument was never about Ancestral vs. Extract. Extract is only mentioned in passing.

[Demonic Attorney]

This is one of a few examples that I'm familiar with.  Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it's probably the least controversial.  I can pull up similar-ish examples for others that aren't quite as extreme, but I'm certainly I'd ruffle feathers in the process.  If I can get assurances that pulling up quotes (with links to put them in context)won't result in my being warned/banned, I'll be happy to grab them.  Or even if ground rules can be established for grabbing them, but restricting commentary on them.

I don't mean to dogpile AmbivalentDuck, and I don't mean to imply that the people arguing against his points aren't doing a fine job, but I wanted to offer an additional response to this post, because reading it left me puzzled. 

First of all, and as others have already noted, Storm was disciplined for that post you cited, and it contributed to a later decision made by the staff to deny him the opportunity to test for Full Membership.  Furthermore, Storm was warned for that conduct because it isn't typical of the posts allowed on TMD.  Derisive, antagonistic, unhelpful comments like that are not accepted, from anyone.  You presented Storm's post as illustrative of a more widespread phenomenon; throughout my tenure last year as a Vintage Adept and now as a moderator, I can recall no such pattern.  You make a vague reference to having other "evidence" on hand, but being reluctant to present it for fear of being punished by the staff for "ruffling a few feathers."

This point is the more important one, and the reason I'm posting in this thread.  What exactly leads you to believe that you will be warned for supplying evidence to bolster your argument?  Reviewing the site rules, I can see no provision that you'd be violating, and therefore no reason to punish you.  More to the point, you seem to harbor an odd belief that the staff is somehow out to get you because you're making arguments against the more visible/prestigious members of the community.  I'm unsure of why you think this.  In the last two years, have you ever seen anyone warned or banned for arguing an unpopular viewpoint or contradicting a leading figure of the community, without more?  I can't recall a single example.

If you have additional proof to offer that I and the other moderators have missed, by all means, feel free to present it.  As long as you observe the posting rules, no one will warn or ban you.  But please refrain from making vague references to some nebulous moderator conspiracy to punish people for disagreeing with some indistinct New World Order of favored users and community figureheads.  We have no such agenda, and to suggest otherwise without proof is disrespectful of the hard work we all do to run this site in a fair and even-handed fashion.   

[AmbivalentDuck]

There's a lot to respond to...this argument has forked several times and most of those forks are pursuing interesting ends.

Demonic Attorney:
I've PMed him briefly explaining why I'm averse to post those quotes directly.  If/After he responds, I'll edit this section accordingly.

Diopter:
I agree with the others who've said that being an ass is already against the site rules.  Explaining things that are extremely like to be right in retrospect could easily take way too much time for the boards to keep operating constructively.  Example: telling someone to replace Imperial Seal with Vampiric Tutor requires *no* explaination.

Dicemanx:
(3.)  Calling someone an idiot is never called for.  I agree with your flagging of people, I disagree with your not holding others to the same standard.

(Good/Bad)  I absolutely agree that message boards aren't polished academic papers.  That's why there's so much (usually constructive) flow.  Example: I oopsed making my examples.

"Gifts Ungiven in a control deck?!?!?  Fact or Fiction obviously."  May generate interesting discussion.  Even though it has little content, it has some and evokes the comparison between Gifts and FoF.

""Everyone thinks Gifts Ungiven is strong deck.  It's clear that it will be tier I."  Is completely useless and has no content.  If there's a clear majority already, it's redundant.  Otherwise, it's completely false.

I agree that the first example has some place on TMD, although I'd prefer it have more content.   But, I think the second example would be warning-worthing as counterproductive and a waste of space.

Machinus:
I absolutely agree.  My "goal" here is to influence the philosophical bearings of the people who have influence here.  I mean, even if there was rule punishing people retroactively for being wrong in an unproductive way...good luck proving they were wrong and that it was unproductive.

Moxlotus:
I've pm-ed Moxlotus with regards to Ancestral in Extract.dec.  I've heard no response.  In any case, it's a question of whether or not I was wrong and might make a good example if the point is ever proved/disproved.  Until that's answered, there's nothing to really respond to.

"Would it help if that sentence was followed by "disruption is key to beating decks.  Without disruption, opposing decks will run over you.  Without disruption, you have no way to protect yourself from your opponents answers."  That's a pretty basic leap of logic to make and if someone can't figure it out they are most likely an idiot. "

Personally, I would have just ignored the thread due to the inclusion of Mole Worms.  The person clearly lacked familiarity with the format and its theory due to the inclusion of that card.  I don't think there's anything that could/should have been done there other than linking to an old Sui primer and a brief statement that that primer is several years out of synch with the format.

Personally, I'd also be in favor of breaking up the improvement forum into two sub forums:
-Content-light
-Community-effort deckbuilding

That way, community effort deckbuilding is clearly labeled as such and can be safely ignored by those not interested in it.

[Anusien]

1.) My example was used to illustrate the problem AmbivalentDuck was talking about - the lack of logic and reason that is evident in some posts on TMD, both by people who present new ideas and by people who provide criticism for ideas. Regardless...

It's already in the rules that posts without significant content are frowned upon and/or will result in (verbal) warnings.

If you see such an instance that hasn't been addressed by the moderators, then use the "report post to a moderator" button. They can't track down everything and rely on you to help them out.

That's all this thread boils down to.  You're claiming that people are being extremely negative and flaming people without giving sufficient analysis.  If you see that sort of thing, click the "Report to Moderator" button.

[AmbivalentDuck]

That's all this thread boils down to.  You're claiming that people are being extremely negative and flaming people without giving sufficient analysis.  If you see that sort of thing, click the "Report to Moderator" button.

I thought this was more about arrogance than negativity.  Of course, this thread is really spread out at this point...so I dunno.

[Harlequin]

@ Accountability for incorrect speculation or analysis:

If this were true, I would stop posting on the Drain.  Flat out.  Not because what I say is often incorrect, but because there would be no incentive for other users to post back.  It would be a stagnant site where no one would be inclined to post.

Its an impossible expectation to say that any time, any user makes any argument... they have to be able to back that claim with sufficient experience data from testing.  This IS the standard in science and other academic areas.  You can't run around saying that the sun orbits the earth, or that Velociraptor would have evolved into the dominant species without sufficient scientific data and/or testing.  In this regard, I view the Mana Drain more as a think tank, rather than a science lab.  No idea is "wrong" any more than idea is "right." 

Let me give you an example:  I'm trying to break into legacy, and in doing so, I am testing some decks of my own design.  I posted a Counterbalance control deck on the legacy forum. Here is what I got

This may be a bit off-topic, but does someone have a vintage Counterbalance list, such as the one you reference?

  Some time later I got 1 question... Huzzah! Someone might have resparked interest in the thread, so I posted another huge post with my latest decklist.  Response to that:  nothing.

I posted the decklist to use the community as a backboard for my ideas.  The original deck I post clearly had plenty of holes in it, and I am still tweaking the deck.... But where is my backboard?  I actually am a bit disappointed with the community.  I would rather people say something, even if its way out in left field, then just ask me for vintage  decklists....  So where does that leave me?  playing against children on MWS  my record so far with the deck 2-0-40 ish.  40 being the number of "Player Lost" I get after I counter the first card with counterbalance.  that right, in almost 2 months of playing the deck, I've only been fortunate enough to have TWO players stick around long enough to finish a sideboarded game.

as an aside:

The Duck Paradox  To view the situation as black and white:  If AmbivalentDuck is right, then many of the posters on THIS thread  (including myself) should be warned for being wrong.  If the community decides that AmbivalentDuck is wrong, then should he, and anyone supporting him, be held accountable for being wrong?   <que Twilight Zone Music>

[Bram]

If AmbivalentDuck is right, then many of the posters on THIS thread  (including myself) should be warned for being wrong.  If the community decides that AmbivalentDuck is wrong, then should he, and anyone supporting him, be held accountable for being wrong?   <que Twilight Zone Music>

Stop it. You're hurting my brain.

[AmbivalentDuck]

@ Accountability for incorrect speculation or analysis:

I must have been unclear somewhere, so to be amazingly clear:

-There's nothing wrong with being wrong. 
-There's nothing punishably wrong with being arrogant.  Though, it's seldom a good thing.
-Being unproductive can be annoying, but it can also be funny and amusing. 

Being wrong in an unproductive or counterproductive way while being arrogant is bad.

[Bram]

Being unproductive can be annoying, but it can also be funny and amusing.

I resent the fact that you just implicitly called me funny.

[Anusien]

What is the point of this thread?  What is being argued?  I've been following it since the beginning, and I lost track of where it's going/why it's here.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Same here.  This is just getting really hard to follow.  I don't even think it's a talking at/to each other problem so much as everyone taking a valid direction and running with it.  Personally, I see that as a good thing because it means that there's a spectrum of opinions with everyone justifying their opinion with very different supports, some more and some less contentious than others.  And those supports seem to get duly treated.  It's just hard to follow because there's so many and the thread forks and meanders so much.

I dunno if it might be useful to try to quickly distill who's saying what, lock this thread, and then discuss the various directions in their own threads.

Various concepts that got mentioned by more than one person:
-Academia and (some of) its characteristics (good and bad) do (not) belong on TMD.
-Accountability for wrongness would stifle posting and/or make the site more productive.
--Wrongness is never bad.
--Wrongness is bad when unproductive and/or arrogant.
--Unproductive and/or arrogant is (always) bad.
--TMD does (not) have a culture of arrogance.

I'll edit this as desired to shorten discussion of what has been said.  If you feel I left something out, or included something innappropriately, I'll edit.  After all, it's just a list of what's been said.

[Bram]

I don't even think it's a talking at/to each other problem so much as everyone taking a valid direction and running with it.  Personally, I see that as a good thing because it means that there's a spectrum of opinions with everyone justifying their opinion with very different supports, some more and some less contentious than others.

Well, my poor attempts at humor aside, you'll note that the thread isn't locked yet. It's at least sort of interesting, though fundamentally weird.