To be clear, while I regret what happened I don't blame myself for this whole debacle. We seemed to be doing some self-reflection and accounting as a community, so I thought I'd do my part to clear the air. What you said is very kind, though <3
General Custom Cards: The Lab
- Thread starter anotak
- Start date
I think this is more just because lengthy posts take a long time to formulate and can be emotionally draining to write, especially when they are part of a heated debate. Sometimes conversations can get to the point where the involved parties are just talking past each other, and at that point it becomes entirely unproductive to continue posting. But also, it feels bad to simply not respond to an argument that may have been going on for several days, even when doing so is probably the best course of action. I feel like many contentious views these days are also very subjective, which can make it difficult or impossible to objectively argue the merits of a position. This is one of the main reasons why I don't talk about single cards or design theory as much as I used to: people are going to play what they like and trying to convince them otherwise is both not my place and a fool's errand.
I'm not necessarily opposed to making more hot-button posts when I think I can effectively and objectively argue the point I want to make. The Champion of the Parish discussion from last month is a good example of this. Even though the decision to play Champion of the Parish is subjective, there are objective reasons both in favor of and against the card. The objective reasons against the card are generally ignored in most discussions of its merit here, and I thought I could reasonably convey why one wouldn't wish to play it, setting aside my personal biases in favor of a purely fact-based argument. I laid out my points effectively, and the conversation was over in 24 hours. Likewise, I felt comfortable contribute to the recent conversation regarding Pteramander because I thought I could maybe shed some light on the disparity between environments where it's good and environments where it's not. I don't think I was as successful there, but I also think people's feelings about how the card plays were kind of getting in the way of proper analysis. Importantly, I wasn't alone in the issue, and it wasn't my debate in the first place, so I wasn't vulnerable in sharing my views.
I want to avoid incredibly subjective conversations like discussions of the quality of current Magic products or the recent debate about Sheoldred, the Apocalypse's popularity. This discussion didn't get particularly heated, but I don't think I would have responded to that post in the first place if the post wasn't made by someone I greatly respect and knew wouldn't blow up the thread (love you, Pete!) and if one of my previous statements wasn't being directly referenced. The conversation around Sheoldred is incredibly subjective. The card was initially dismissed as bad, but after its good results in standard, a lot of people started testing the card in their Cubes– and that's great! I personally think the card has mediocre play patterns and isn't particularly fun, but that's just my opinion. However, I feel that sentiment may be adopted by more designers as the card has more time to marinate in other people's Cubes, so I think it's likely that its current play rates will decrease over time. The problem with this particular debate is that literally every aspect being discussed is subjective. While there are objective features of Sheoldred, the Apocalypse that can be discussed when trying to evaluate the card, this conversation was purely about subjective opinions– not simply my opinions about the card, but my opinion on how other people's opinions are going to change over time. See the problem? There are just several layers of subjectivity with this conversation that can't fully be resolved.
I actively chose to avoid furthering a different discussion responding to my feelings about the card because I just didn't feel like fighting with someone about opinions. I probably could have debunked some questionable objective claims in that post (especially those attacking Cubes like my main Cube and LandofMordor's Cube... that really wasn't cool.), but ultimately all I would have been able to say was "you're not fully considering context" in 10 different ways and pressed post. And then it's likely the person would have responded to me to dismiss my points. So then I would have needed to pick apart that as well. Plus it's possible someone else would have started posting to escalate the situation. That just seems like an incredible waste of time to me. The other person made a flawed response post, but that's incredibly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Like I said, the only reason I responded to the original Sheoldred discussion was because I respect the fact that person wouldn't needlessly blow it up.
In a similar vein I think there are just comments I could make that wouldn't necessarily further the discussion. I think my views on Imotekh the Stormlord are a good example of this. I'm choosing not to comment in that thread because while there's plenty I could say about the card, I don't think it would actually improve anyone's perceptions, at least for the non-lurker crowd. I don't think Imotekh is a particularly powerful card, but that's mostly because it's stat block leaves something to be desired and it's play patterns can be kind of inconsistent in practice. It's still really cool, so I don't feel like there's a point to going in and being a negative nancy about the card, especially because there are plenty of environments where the downsides I would outline are pretty meaningless. It's not something I would necessarily Cube with and I don't think the card is easy to support, but I don't think that makes it completely untenable everywhere. The only people who I think would benefit from seeing a post like that are brand new designers who don't have a firm grasp on power band yet, but I don't think there are a ton of people on the site currently who are that inexperienced. A random thread about a random cool Warhammer card definitely isn't the place to pontificate to new designers about power bands.
In Short:
–I don't want to have, drawn out, pointless debates over subjective properties of cards or design.
–I don't want to make posts that could be perceived as overly negative (except for when appropriate).
–I don't want to start or continue discussions that could escalate into big fights.
AND
–I want to make objective points that are provable.
–I want my subjective points to clearly be opinions.
I think in the last couple of years there has been a lot of Animosity on the forums. While I think this trend also extends to the broader Cube community, it has made it very difficult to make any sort of claim (objective, subjective, or otherwise) that people won't mostly agree with. I don't really want to post anything that could be upsetting because I don't think the grief is worth it to anyone involved. Sometimes this means not responding to posts that are frustrating and sometimes that leaves good ideas unshared. It's the price of diplomacy in the current community landscape. As much as I would like things to go back to how they were (or more accurately, I would like things to go back to how they felt) back in the 2018/2019 time frame, I don't know what that would look like or what we would need to do to get there. Internally, I would guess some of the work is going to require resolving differences in between Retail-like, Master's-like, MTGO-like, and Constructed-like Cubes. We need to understand that the differences in designing good Cubes with these approaches means cards won't always work the same or post the same results. A lack of this understanding pulled the community apart over a disagreement regarding a random card from 15 years ago, and I don't think we've fully recovered from that incident. The healing process is going to take some time, but I don't think it can begin until people can become less defensive and more open-minded. Until then, we're just going to be left with a community of ruffled feathers and hurt feelings.
Last edited:
Expressing differing opinions isn't fighting; that's just a discussion. This has always been a forum to engage in a variety of takes on card design, card inclusions, and cube design. I find it strange that you're hung up on objectivity when that isn't really compatible for a niche hobby within a hobby due to the subjective nature of cube design. Especially on this forum with a wide variety of takes on design and individual cubes that fluctuate all throughout the spectrum.
What I really don't appreciate is passive-aggressiveness like this, so I'm just going to hash it out right here rather than let things fester for a month like a year back since I seem to be in a lot of these linked threads. Please point out where you were attacked or where I talked down to you "objectively" in that post. Because funnily enough you didn't seem to have any issues a year back with harsher discourse from other parties towards many members around here, but clearly this struck a nerve. These responses, which I'm assuming you've taken offense to, are all about my subjective views and opinions on the card and design at large:
Debating ideas, individual cards, and design philosophies have always been fair game as long as it's respectful on these boards. I laid out my position on why I think the card plays better than it looked on first glance, why it could work for the type of design I deploy, why I'm interested in playing with it moving forward, and how I think an environment can be tailored to make these kind of cards shine. I, like yourself, did not have an interest in this card when it came out but I changed my mind about it after seeing it in action. It's not in opposition to your post, where you didn't elaborate any further, but it was to offer an alternative view and bring renewed discussion about a new card now that more of us have had time to see it in action.
But that doesn't seem to be what you took from this at all. You seem to be fixated on the missed opportunity to "debunk" my post because it was a "flawed response" which is, quite frankly, condescending and reminiscent of unpleasant interactions from a year prior. These are all opinions; what would you be trying to prove here? That my opinion is somehow incorrect? If your goal is to use "objectivity" to avoid a back-and-forth discussion by finding a position to win with then more power to you, but talking cube with different designers is all about having these discussions and exploring a subjective process. It's not debate club.
If you're going to say nah this card is bad and leave it, that doesn't just shut off further discussion that could arise. In your individual cube blog sure, that's fair, but that that's never been the case in any of these main forum threads where everyone can and will chime in posting opinions with the goal of encouraging exploration and promoting different perspectives.
That's what has continued to make these forums worth revisiting for years and years.
That is not at all what the core issue was and you know it. What a gracious retelling of a user that has been a negative presence and kicked out off almost every other major cube community online. For good reason.
Last edited:
Hey man, I'm sorry I made you feel bad. I did not choose my words in that section well, and I will expand upon what I was trying to convey.
When I made the short post, we had just had the first conversation about Sheoldred barely a week before. My opinion had not changed, and I did not want to rehash the conversation that had just occurred. I knew Velrun had already seen my previous postings on the subject, and given his tendency to attack me for very weird subjective reasons, such as the Ponder Border Debacle, I did not want to open myself up to another situation like that. So, I purposefully made a short post that didn't have any analysis or substance specifically to shut off further discussion. My goal was to nip an unpleasant situation in the bud.
Your post, which was the next post in the thread after the short post I made, started with the phrase "On the contrary," which made me think that you were directly responding to what I had to say. I knew there was a high probability you had seen my opinions on the card already since you reacted to both of the posts I was first responding to in the other thread.
Then you made a bunch of comments that felt like digs at people who don't have Cubes that function similarly to yours. Specifically:
I read these lines and thought you were basically telling me that:
–This is a response to what I had said previously.
–My Cube is boring.
–Considering tempo losses due to removal is bad design.
–My removal suite is unhealthy and isn't thoughtful.
–Consistent decks make a format less fun.
And that's just extremely offensive. I felt like you were saying my Cube was bad and I was a bad designer for not wanting to play the same card as you. I understand now reading your response to my post in this thread that this was not necessarily your intention. Unfortunately, I did not understand what you meant when I read your post, and it made me feel really bad.
Ultimately I chose not to respond because I didn't want to fight with you over your opinions, which I saw as hurtful attacks.
And I agree! But it's very easy for a disagreement to turn into a fight. I really do not like fighting and I want to avoid having fights about my hobby.
I had a huge issue with the harsher discourse from other parties with many members around here, but I avoided getting involved in any of the more hostile engagements on the forums because I fundamentally did not want to hurt any feelings or get into any real fights. However, I did not stay silent about the topic behind the scenes. I had many private conversations with people like @Onderzeeboot and @landofMordor to help come up with a solution to resolve the conflict, and I even had an almost hour long discord call with @Jason Waddell sharing my opinions on the events that unfolded. I was commited to trying to find a way that the conflict could be resolved in a way that would allow everyone to coexist, but that unfortunately never came to pass. Ultimately I think Jason made the correct decision in chosing to ban the offending new user, because the majority of the conflict passed when that happened.
A lack of understanding was literally the core of the issue. The new user was not willing to understand how to interact within the Riptide ecosystem. However, as I saw it, some seasoned users weren't willing to see the other opinions being expressed. I wasn't aware of any of the reddit drama when these events were unfolding, so to me it seemed like people were ganging up on someone for saying some old cards weren't good for no reason. While this may not have been the case, it felt this way to me and a few other people who didn't know of the previous relationships between users. I know at least one person left the forums for a year because of what happened.
When I look back on the events of last year, I feel like we were given a situation where we received a second, more aggressive Velrun. Instead of trying to understand how to communicate with that person, some members just kept starting fights with them until the moderators had no choice but to ban the newbie. While the banning was the best decision given the context, I still wonder wether or not it had to happen that way. We put up with a lot sometimes in order to accomidate users who are less sensitive or have poorer communications skills than is desirable on a platform like this. It takes time to learn the ins and outs of our community. I sometimes wonder if the events that unfolded wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the provocations from some riptiders with a previous history with the user in question, or if this is a Velrun situation where the blow-ups and fighting would have happened regardless of what anyone did. Again, I think given what happened the correct choices were made by the moderation team, but I don't know if it had to happen the way it did had we all been able to reach an understanding. And that's sad.
I'd like to close by using an analogy Jason used in our conversation regarding the events that happened last year. Jason said that having the negative user on the forums made people feel like there was a shark in the water looking to attack others for their opinions. And he was right, a lot of the conflcit went away when the user was banned. These days, I feel like there are sharks in the water looking to attack me whenever I say something they don't agree with. I find this distressing, as Riptide was once a safe place for me to explore Cube design without having to worry about getting dogpiled by people with different viewpoints. Since that has changed, I feel like I don't really have a Cube home anymore. It's very difficult, because while using the forums is significantly less fun and significantly more stressful than it used to be, I don't want more people to get banned when coexistence is possible. I think everyone can reach an understanding, but this takes time and work. For my part, I have been trying to avoid posting anything negative to help cultivate positive discorse, avoid entering conversations about negative topics, and leave constructive comments when and where that makes sense. As we've seent this week, that alone isn't enough, but I think if I can make my relationship with the forums as positive as possible, it could improve the site as a whole.
So again, I would like to appologize to you for not reading your post about Sheoldred more charitably and choosing my words in my previous post here so poorly. I really hope we can resolve the issues that the forum has been having and create a better environment for everyone.
Last edited:
To be clear, Velrun got a 'time-out' and not an outright ban. The temp-ban will end any day now.
Face to face communication is already difficult, it is easy to misunderstand each other. Non-face to face is even harder, let alone the non-nativeness of the language, or the different ways of communicating due to different backgrounds.
I always operate under the assumption that the other person means well and that it is not a personal attack.
Did CML have good cube designs? Or was his function primarily to badger people with longer attention spans into greatly improving their own cubes? Miss having his energy/style around here.To be fair there was only ever one good designer on this site.
CML’s wacky, gruff posts from the early days are some of my favorite of all times
Where did CML go? (I hope I do not rip open old wounds)
He was truly the Diogenes of our times.
I think CML has just moved on from Magic. I have him on Facebook and he seems very happy.
I don't really know. CML was very good at verbalizing why bad designs were bad. Mostly he seemed very critical of WOTC culture, so I'm sure he'd have very colorful things to say these days.
glad to hear he’s doing well
Smart guy
cml was actually a very common kind of guy (literate aesthete/hater/repressed homosexual) who rarely dabbles in Magic (because he spends that money on drugs instead). i like to think his legacy of laconic hating lives on in several members of this community, like sirfunchalot, and me. to varying degrees of repression
Last edited:
cml's greatest contribution to the community was, by far, winning a Magic tournament while high on shrooms. There never will be a greater Riptider.
After a hand workshopping a design for an entirely hybrid custom LRW/SHM cube. The goal is a mardu bomb rare that acts as a virtual fog or temporary Ghostly Prison by punishing one attack - Instant, enchantment, whatever - themed after the r/w Lorwyn Giants and w/b Shadowmoor Hags.
The goal for this design is to buy time by creating an incentive for your opponent to attack small, and for the card to get better when you have blockers - creating a tension between attacking with enough creatures to trigger the enchantment, but not so many that you get blown out by no blocks being declared. It's also just a sort-of Fog if you have no creatures out, as only one creature will attack into it unless lethal is being threatened.
As is, the templating feels ambiguous (How many is "that many" - as written I'm pretty sure it would check the number of creatures who dealt damage but I kind of want it to check the amount of damage dealt) and clunky, and I'm not quite sure how to fix it while keeping the card clean and legible. On top of that, I'm not sure it's quite hitting the mark gameplay-wise, so I'm totally open to a complete redesign, and I'm also trying to come up with a name that works both for a feudkiller giant vibe and hag-y/witchy revenge spell - something involving holding a grudge would be great because that also hits the Duergar flavor-wise but I'm clean out of ideas.
Retributive Justice
1
Enchantment
Whenever one or more creatures deal combat damage to you, sacrifice ~ and those creatures controllers each sacrifice that many non-land permanents.
The goal for this design is to buy time by creating an incentive for your opponent to attack small, and for the card to get better when you have blockers - creating a tension between attacking with enough creatures to trigger the enchantment, but not so many that you get blown out by no blocks being declared. It's also just a sort-of Fog if you have no creatures out, as only one creature will attack into it unless lethal is being threatened.
As is, the templating feels ambiguous (How many is "that many" - as written I'm pretty sure it would check the number of creatures who dealt damage but I kind of want it to check the amount of damage dealt) and clunky, and I'm not quite sure how to fix it while keeping the card clean and legible. On top of that, I'm not sure it's quite hitting the mark gameplay-wise, so I'm totally open to a complete redesign, and I'm also trying to come up with a name that works both for a feudkiller giant vibe and hag-y/witchy revenge spell - something involving holding a grudge would be great because that also hits the Duergar flavor-wise but I'm clean out of ideas.
Hmm, it seems a tad underpowered. In my cube, with only weak creatures, the following is not unbeatable:
That's kind of why I want it to force sacrifices equal to damage dealt - a Seasoned Hallowblade attacking into No Mercy costs you a card, a Seasoned Hallowblade attacking into this costs you three. Not saying that's enough, mind, just that I do agree that a straight up 1-turn No Mercy would not be there power-wise
“Or if this is a Velrun situation where the blow-ups ans fighting would have happened regardless of what anyone did.”
This is the only forum I have ever been banned. As in ever in my life. And now it has happened twice. I do not feel welcome here. You gang up even though I repeatedly ask you to leave me alone. You (not you Train specifically) shout even when I stay calm. So the admins removed the person everyone was shouting at to make the shouting stop.
I do not want to attack you. You often have a different viewpoint/opinion than many others here. I often agree with your points and your points are valid, as sometimes simultaneously are the points of the others. This sadly and unfairly has the tendency to become a complete brawl of people not communicating, but talking in the void and assuming the other gets the point.
Furthermore, when you are in the minority with your opinion it quickly feels like that everyone is attacking you. We as a community should try to avoid that a person could feel this way.
However, as often as I side with you, I found that your last few posts were a tad weird and it is weird to ask people for a discussion and than tell them, without explanation, to, let’s put it bluntly, sod off.
I understand that the feeling to get ganged upon made you angry. We as a community should not make you feel this way. However, all posts should be constructive, and I am sorry but I did not find your last few ones constructive.
Pleas keep posting, if you feel ganged up, please point it out!
Last edited:
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
The admins blocked the person whose behavior multiple people were having a problem with. I still don't know why you had a problem with my original post, and which part exactly you thought was aggressive, unless you misinterpreted the "I'll bite" remark. That was just a shorthand figure of speech to say "sure, I'm interested in continuing this conversation here." This whole fallout started with me being genuinely interested in hearing your arguments, and moving the discussion to the "right" thread to be able to do so, because those were the conditions you set in the other thread. I had no ill intent whatsoever, and there was no aggression (intended) on my part.
Meanwhile, you say you didn't shout, but you managed to quadruple-post, including these two posts that, at the very least, come across as unnecessarily (passive-)aggressive:
Furthermore, you pinged six (!) people to strengthen your argument, which prompted multiple of them to chime in to say they didn't in fact agree with you. That's not because they had any desire to "gang up" on you, they answered to the thread because you pinged them and (I'm assuming unknowingly) misrepresented their words as corroboration of your argument.
This led to a series of interactions where, yes, you asked people to leave you alone, but you did so in response to a bunch of questions that were completely valid in light of the discussion going on. That's like someone insulting someone, then asking people who stick up for the insulted person to leave them alone. No. You were being an asshole, and people weren't about to let you get away with it. You don't get to walk away from that on your own terms.
Finally, considering the build up of emotions, Jason stepped in and asked you this:
To which you basically replied: "Shut up. You're all wrong and I'm right!" Reacting like that to a mod's request will get you banned everywhere, so I don't know what you expected to achieve there. Frankly, the whole "If they would be quiet, things would solve themself." line is preposterous. Judging from your latest reply, you still don't get it.
Disagreeing is not the same thing as fighting, and things can be learned from examining the nature of a disagreement. Frankly, as someone who has repeatedly helped you out with finding art, when you can just Google it yourself, and tried to interpret some of your weirder posts charitably, I think I deserved a bit more respect from you. As you can tell by the tone of this post, I don't appreciate at all how you treated me here. Honestly, I'm not quite sure where to go from here, but I'm done walking on eggshells.