[Article] Interview w/Nick Calcaterra-Vintage World Championships *4th*

[Yare]

I was under the impression that multiple cuts did count as a shuffle though.  so if he cuts it once that's it, but if he cuts it twice or into 3 pieces you can make a single cut when he gives it back.

Cutting: One time only, removing a single portion of a deck and placing it on top of the remaining portion without looking at any of the card faces. Anything more than this one cut is considered a shuffle.

[DarkfnTemplar]

@Purplehat: you wanna know if I called him a cheater or not? Well I didn't.
#1 That interview was edited and i never used the word "proved".
#2 Don't make things out to be what they are not. You're trying to start shit. I've only played Shay twice, and he is a very respectful and nice player from what I've experienced so far. I specifically pointed out that I wasn't calling him a cheater so no one would take my comments the wrong way. Obviously, I have to say things twice to you in order for you to comprehend it.

@Yames, Shock Wave is right. I have only been to two vintage tournaments with more than 20 people. This was my first time playing that build of ichorid and second time total. If you saw my match vs. TK, you  should be kicking yourself. I almost punted that game a million times. (BTW, TK still gets to punch me in the face)

@Everyone, I suck at magic. But I'm working on it

[beemer]

#1 That interview was edited and i never used the word "proved".

Unfortunately there is not much I can do to change anything after it's edited/published. As you can tell, some things were cut from our conversation, and both of our speech gets compromised for continuity. ugh. sorry

[Purple Hat]

If you never said proved then I think it's very different.  It looks a lot more like "I didn't shuffle well enough and got unlucky."  Unfortunately the way it's written right now it doesn't look that way at all to me, and you saying "I'm not saying he's cheating...it's just an odd coincidence" looks a lot like saying "no offense man, but you're like the ugliest person I know."  and then being like "what? I said no offense."  Right now, as quoted in the article, it looks to me like it says "I'm not saying he cheated, I'm just saying he set my deck causing me to lose."  but like I said, if you were misquoted then that's quite different.

[DarkfnTemplar]

   Your medaphor is incorrect because you are comparing a declaration of an opinion to an observation. Saying someone is ugly is purley relative while observations of the facts (The bazaar was on bottom, I never drew one) are not a matter of one's beliefs. I just objectively said what happened. However, if I didn't say what I did, there could be room left for assumptions.
So even if I wasn't misquoted, you're still wrong.

[Purple Hat]

I don't object to or question the statement that the one time you looked bazaar was on the bottom...that sucks, but it's life.  I object to the inference in the interview that Rich's "master shuffling" resulted in your match loss.  This is pretty clearly an opinion not a statement of fact, and the way that it is stated in the interview made it seem, to me, that you were saying Rich was setting your deck.  As I said before, "I think he was setting my deck but I'm not calling him a cheater" is a statement that, on it's face, is false.  Either you don't think he set your deck, which it appears you don't since you say you were misquoted, or you think he was cheating, you can't have it both ways.  If you were misquoted then obviously that changes the implications of your statements.  I was only going off the printed statements attributed to you which carry a strong implication that your opponent was causing your cards to be in a particular order, ie. bazaars on the bottom.

[DarkfnTemplar]

I don't object to or question the statement that the one time you looked bazaar was on the bottom...that sucks, but it's life.  I object to the inference in the interview that Rich's "master shuffling" resulted in your match loss.  This is pretty clearly an opinion not a statement of fact, and the way that it is stated in the interview made it seem, to me, that you were saying Rich was setting your deck.  As I said before, "I think he was setting my deck but I'm not calling him a cheater" is a statement that, on it's face, is false.  Either you don't think he set your deck, which it appears you don't since you say you were misquoted, or you think he was cheating, you can't have it both ways.  If you were misquoted then obviously that changes the implications of your statements.  I was only going off the printed statements attributed to you which carry a strong implication that your opponent was causing your cards to be in a particular order, ie. bazaars on the bottom.

Please quote me where I explicitly said that his shuffling caused me to lose the game.
And you weren't talking about the master shuffling part because opinions cannot cause coincidences ("I'm not sayign he cheated, just an odd coincidence."). Only events. And the event which caused it was a fact.

This just isn't worth my time anymore, you can have the last post.