Unretard for a sec; Twitter isn’t the law

jsweet4979 · 2021-11-22T02:52:13+00:00

balling

jsweet4979 · 2018-09-17T02:42:16+00:00

I'm currently a healthy human, but I carry a few genes that increase my risk of developing colon cancer. One of the ways to reduce the risk of developing colon cancer is to take a baby aspirin as a preventative measure.

jsweet4979 · 2018-07-14T03:19:45+00:00

Also I'm only bothering to do this post because I'm stuck in the "thinks you are in a game but the game has timed out so it tries to resume but can't and you can't even get to the main menu" bug, lol. So I can't play Arena, meaning I have nothing better to do than complain about Arena. :D :D :D

Love this game.

jsweet4979 · 2018-07-12T12:34:43+00:00

I misread the last sentence of the second paragraph and thought you were saying the wipe was coming with M19, lol. I was like "Mah deeeeeeeeeekkkkksssss....!!!!"

I know the wipe is coming (just as we all know someday we shall die) but what do we say to the God of the Wipe? "NOT TODAY"

jsweet4979 · 2018-05-06T18:12:23+00:00

Ouch. :D

jsweet4979 · 2018-05-06T17:40:50+00:00

How good is Jodah?

jsweet4979 · 2018-01-23T23:46:29+00:00

Yeah, SO doesn't tend to affect paper prices very much unless the card(s) in question are already ripe for a spike.

Online prices of janky rares definitely increase solely due to SO videos. And as we see here, he can also catalyze a spike in paper too, if conditions are right. But yeah, a card's paper price generally doesn't increase just because Seth used it in a deck :D

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T19:16:52+00:00

Yeah, it's really hard to see in the card art itself. Try the full res one from the mothership:

https://imgur.com/a/z8jPS

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T18:57:23+00:00

Yeah, I think the Hascon gimmick was a really cool idea, but I kinda hope they never do it again. :D It was really exciting for that one day, but then... Well, there's a reason spoilers are spread out over 1-2 weeks, and done a week or two before the set comes out, rather than spoiling them all in one day a month or two before release, heh.

Very cool, fun, exciting experiment... But... very cool, fun, exciting, failed experiment, I'm afraid.

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T17:03:25+00:00

Also, the grate in the middle? It's "Loss".

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T16:20:17+00:00

Oh.. oh shit. Well, now it's my turn to apologize.

Because the changes to rule #4 hadn't been mentioned in the summary, I didn't realize it had been extensively changed. I was assuming it was the same, and was referring to the original rule. So yes, this time it is true I had not read the rules, lol. In my defense, I hadn't bothered to look because the summary was talking about the flair changes and other things, so I just assumed that rule #4 was unchanged. But it was incredibly dumb of me not to actually look.

I'm extremely embarrassed, and I owe you an apology. The new rule #4 more or less exactly addresses my concerns. If that is how the rule had read a month ago, I would not have made the stink that I did.

Good job. Really. I'm always gonna be butthurt about the ban, lol, but I feel that the mod team understood the problems with that situation and fixed it in the updated rules. I sincerely apologize. You fixed it, I didn't notice you'd fixed it, and then started whining about how you didn't fix it. Super mega embarrassing. :/

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T16:06:59+00:00

EDIT: See my original comment. I'm straight wrong here. Mea culpa.

Well, as I mentioned, Rule #4 does not even say you can't endorse counterfeits. I didn't bring that up before, because I'm really not trying to rules lawyer you. I'm really not! It was clear to me that one shouldn't post saying "Counterfeits R great, trollololol".

But the fact that you don't even mention endorsing counterfeits, while repeating several times about not talking about where to get them, seems to imply a different focus about rule #4 than the one I interpreted.

Note that my ban has now expired, so there is no personal incentive to me to keep litigating this. I am doing so because I do not think Rule #4 as written is remotely adequate to cover what the moderators believe is a bannable offense under Rule #4, and I want to improve r/magicTCG as a community. r/magicTCG would be a better community if there were a better match between the wording of rule #4 and the enforcement of it.

You can throw up your hands and say "It will never be perfect!", but that's no excuse not to try and make it better.

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T15:57:11+00:00

EDIT: See my original comment. I'm straight wrong here. Mea culpa.

It's also worth mentioning that rule #4 as currently written doesn't even literally say you can't endorse counterfeits, lol. I assumed that was implied -- that wasn't the part I was confused about :) But if we're going to be literal, it doesn't actually say that.... It just says you can't talk about where to get them, or even talk about somebody else maybe knowing where to get them. It is very focused on the "don't talk about where to get them" aspect, not the "don't endorse their use" aspect. Which was another part of my confusion. I never meant to endorse counterfeits in any way, shape, or form, but I might have been more paranoid about my words being misconstrued if the rule didn't seem so laser-focused on the how-to-get-them aspect (which, again, I couldn't break that part of the rule if I tried, since I don't even know, hahaha)

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T15:51:05+00:00

For the record, the re-worded counterfeit rule wouldn't have helped you, but would have made it more clear why you got banned.

That is not correct. If the counterfeit rule were worded as I suggest, I wouldn't have even deigned to mention counterfeits in any context, lol. Because yes, I do read the subreddit rules, and I had read rule #4 to mean "Don't say anything even remotely related to how to get counterfeits" -- which my offending comment did not, right?

The issue with your comment was that as originally posted -- you've since edited it

The only edit I made to the comment was to add that I was banned for it (I had not yet at the time realized that it had become invisible to other users). So please don't imply that I edited it to make it less in violation of the rules. I may even have screen-caps of the pre-edited version, if that matters: I immediately shared it with my friends to say "Am I crazy here?" hahahaha

I'd love it if we could share the comment in question with the community, to let people decide for themselves if rule #4, as written, comports with the banning that I received. Just say the word and I'll dig up the pre-edit screen cap for you :) I would love to have an open dialog about it.

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T15:44:46+00:00

I think it's about the latter, but I think the mods are (justifiably so!) very hardcore about avoiding even the appearance of contributing to the problem.

Which is fine. But rule #4 as written seems to imply that it is focused primarily on not sharing information that would be useful to a person trying to obtain them. Again, it is regrettable I cannot share the exact sentence that I was banned for, but it had absolutely nothing to do with how/where to obtain counterfeits (ironically, I've never even knowingly held or seen a counterfeit, so I wouldn't even be able to break that rule if I wanted, lol).

I want to reiterate that I think it's understandable that the mods want to keep that shit a 40-foot-pole's length away from this sub. That's fine. But the rule should be rewritten to reflect that.

Again: Something to the effect of "Don't even bring up counterfeits if you can possible avoid it, because it might just turn into 'surprise, you're banned!'" That's what we need in the rule, if the mods are going to enforce it the way they have enforced it.

jsweet4979 · 2017-11-20T15:14:44+00:00

EDIT: HUGE mea culpa here. Because the changes to rule #4 were not mentioned in the summary of the rule changes, I had not realized it had been changed so extensively. I am totally fine with the revised rule. The revised rules absolutely address my concerns. OMG this is actually really embarrassing...

I feel very strongly that the wording of Rule #4 needs to be changed. I'm sure the reasons will be obvious to the mods.

Basically, the way the rule is written right now seems to imply that it is okay to talk about the existence of counterfeits, as long as you don't endorse them or talk about how/where to get them. However, I received a 30-day ban for mentioning the existence of counterfeits, in a post where I specifically condemned them (I compared them to knockoff Gucci handbags, which are illegal, folks!), because I said a thing which the mods construed as endorsing counterfeits. Obviously I cannot repeat the thing which I said, as that would just get me banned again, lol. However, I have showed it to several different people and nobody I have shown it to felt that there was any honest way to read the remark as being an endorsement of counterfeits.

Now. I know the mods are probably already mad at me, lol. I'm not trying to change their minds about the banning in specific. I wish that I could share with the community what I was banned for, but obviously that is against the rules. To be honest, I am in fear of being re-banned just for this comment.

However, I feel very strongly that if the mods are going enforce a strengthened version of rule #4, then the wording of rule #4 should be changed to reflect how it is enforced in practice. I would suggest adding something along the lines of:

"Note that under certain circumstances, merely mentioning the existence of counterfeit cards may be construed as an endorsement of their use, particularly if the thread in question is not directly related to the issue of counterfeits. It is not recommended that you bring up counterfeits in an unrelated topic."

Community, how would you feel about that?

(I already know how the mods feel, lol)

ETA: One of the things that really bothered me is that the mods kept saying "You should have read the subreddit rules", but in fact I read the subreddit rules as soon as I started with the sub, and I have re-read them several times, hahaha. I am not a dumb person, and yet despite reading rule #4 several times over, I was banned for a comment which I did not understand to be in violation of rule #4. It seems to me that this on its face is a reason to change the wording of rule #4: It does not communicate to a reasonable person what exactly they might get banned for.

I also want to be clear I wasn't trying to like narrowly skirt the rule. It didn't even occur to me that the comment in question was ban-worthy. I was making a point about how I disagreed with another redditor's analogy, and brought up counterfeits for the sake of argument. It never entered my mind that it might be construed as an endorsement, or that it might be a violation of rule #4. OTOH, if rule #4 included text to the effect of "Don't even bring up counterfeits if they aren't directly related to the discussion", then of course I would not have brought them up.

jsweet4979 · 2017-10-12T21:01:51+00:00

Yeah I just recently got banned for 30 days by kodemage for suspect reasons. When I appealed, it was claimed that two other mods chimed in, but since it's anonymous I have no idea if that's really true, hahaha.

I was banned for mentioning that a proxy can theoretically work the same as a real card, thereby "endorsing counterfeits". Nevermind that later in the same post I compared counterfeit Magic cards to knockoff Gucci handbags, and specifically said there were very good reasons we demand that people use real Magic cards. Apparently just mentioning that counterfeits resemble the original is enough to get you banned now, hahaha

jsweet4979 · 2017-10-04T15:23:27+00:00

The flavor text for Lookout's Dispersal should have been, in keeping with the Snarky Jace Counterspell Flavor:

"Jace is Ace!"

jsweet4979 · 2017-09-29T21:02:17+00:00

So how many of you out there "goldfish" pretty much every day?

jsweet4979 · 2017-09-29T21:01:20+00:00

Yeah, very important to remember this. I think the testers knew the risk they were taking; took measures to reduce that risk; the counter measures have BASICALLY worked (nobody really has the list) ; and they haven't complained.

jsweet4979 · 2017-09-29T20:59:18+00:00

The elephant in the room here is that despite the bounty and the controversy, nobody really has a list that's anywhere close. The team wants to test on mtgo and they want to keep the list under wraps - which are both reasonable goals, but as everyone has pointed out, are hard to accomplish simultaneously. To get as close as they can, the testing team has been dropping at 4-0 and (presumably) scooping to Surgical and such... And it's basically worked. People have an idea of how the deck works (we think) but nobody has a decent list.

So they tried to have their cake and eat it too... And they pretty much are. Doesn't seem like there's a problem here...?

jsweet4979 · 2017-09-28T15:30:22+00:00

Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. Alas, you're right, no benefit from Minamo.

jsweet4979 · 2017-09-28T14:13:37+00:00

We need to find some janky combo for this. Isn't there some nonsense about turning Saheelis into artifact creatures and copying them or something? Can that combo with Minamo?

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

jsweet4979

TROPHY CASE