Editorial - Endeavor: Joy and Netdecking. - by Mogg

[Streetz]

This thread is reserved for the dicussion of the following article:

http://www.magicdeckvortex.com/mdvarticle0538.htm

Please read it, enjoy it and discuss it here.

What did you like about the article? Was it inspiring, informational, ingenius? Was it inappropriate? Was there anything you really liked or didn't like about it?

Let the author know here!

Thanks!

**NOTE: This thread is posted before the article goes live. If the article isn't up yet, please check back later.

[Serra Redeemer]

This article Rant hurt my brain. Netdecking is Boring and Uncreative. Sure it might bring joy, but it also brings an emptiness knowing that you had to use another person's idea, making anything done with a "Netdeck" hollow. Every time I have used a "Netdeck" I almost always feel like I'm cheating, even though, I am not. It isn't exactly a joyful feeling. I feel better when I build a deck of "My Own".

(Anything in quotations [" "] means it either can't be proven [My Own] or slightly altered [Netdeck{ing}])

I'm not going to say Netdecking is evil. Never thought it was evil. I do think it is a shame that Nearly everyone has to resort to the internet just to build a deck.

I do like this article a lot. Even though, No matter how you dice it, any argument for or against Netdecking will be flawed, and flamed. You will also get the your opinion don't matter'ish stuff. On top of Barachem and Kozy battling it out here if they read this. But it was an enjoyable read.

[Akir94]

I really liked this article. It's quite heavy with philosophic staff (I say it a someone who actualy studies it, so I know what I'm talking about), and it's a bit difficult to understand it- it takes some time to understand the argument. I would advice to try to sort it a bit (numbering the steps of the argument, for example (rephrasing part of the second paragraph):
1. The mind is activated to achieve a purpose- a mind without a purpose can't work.
2. The purpose is furthered by action- purpose without action is wasted.
3. Purpose assumes responsebility.
4. Action assumes control.
and so on...

Originally Posted by Serra Redeemer

This article Rant hurt my brain. Netdecking is Boring and Uncreative. Sure it might bring joy, but it also brings an emptiness knowing that you had to use another person's idea, making anything done with a "Netdeck" hollow. Every time I have used a "Netdeck" I almost always feel like I'm cheating, even though, I am not. It isn't exactly a joyful feeling. I feel better when I build a deck of "My Own".

(Anything in quotations [" "] means it either can't be proven [My Own] or slightly altered [Netdeck{ing}])

I'm not going to say Netdecking is evil. Never thought it was evil. I do think it is a shame that Nearly everyone has to resort to the internet just to build a deck.

I do like this article a lot. Even though, No matter how you dice it, any argument for or against Netdecking will be flawed, and flamed. You will also get the your opinion don't matter'ish stuff. On top of Barachem and Kozy battling it out here if they read this. But it was an enjoyable read.

I don't agree. You see, this article isn't intended to change our (i also hate netdecking- Johnies FTW) opinion about netdecking, but rather to counter the critisizm about it.

I myself think that netdecking is intended for people that gain joy from winning- netdecking is a shortcut to winning. I don't like netdecking because i believe that doing the unpredictable gives the most chances for winning, just like in nearly anything else. Combined with the fact that im Johnie, you can understand where my unpredictability is shown.

[Mogg]

Thanks for the responses. Serra, I realize you've made the point before, but I still don't (but would like to) understand the stance summarized in the quote below.

Originally Posted by Serra Redeemer

Any argument for or against Netdecking will be flawed.

Why? What is your standard for determining the validity of an action? I.e., what fundamental test does not apply to netdecking that makes its validity impossible to determine?

The presence of netdecks in your games is contained in four options:
A. No one may play a netdeck.
B. Everyone may play a netdeck.
C. You may not play a netdeck, but everyone else may.
D. You may play a netdeck, but no one else may.

Regardless of your choice to netdeck or not, the choice exists for your opponent, and I've not seen anyone who was impartial to that choice. That is, you seem to have a preference for A or C.

If the cause of a preference - and the effect of other actions to either further or hinder it - is understood, can it not be argued that an optimal solution exists, which maximizes each player's preference?

@Akir94
I'm not a philosophy student, but I've been interested lately in a personal study of it. I didn't think the points in my article could be clearly conveyed unless my starting point was clear.

Originally Posted by Akir94

I don't agree. You see, this article isn't intended to change our (i also hate netdecking- Johnies FTW) opinion about netdecking, but rather to counter the critisizm about it.

I myself think that netdecking is intended for people that gain joy from winning- netdecking is a shortcut to winning. I don't like netdecking because i believe that doing the unpredictable gives the most chances for winning, just like in nearly anything else. Combined with the fact that im Johnie, you can understand where my unpredictability is shown.

It's meant to change your opinion insofar as to say that the existence of netdecking (not the stance that everyone would benefit from netdecking) is compatible with all the views on what makes Magic fun, which is essentially what you said.

I'm mainly quoting you for the last paragraph, which reiterates a distinction I wanted to make. I am arguing, in part, that a perfect deck will exist only in the context of other perfect known decks. It is therefore necessary that players be allowed to play whichever deck they believe is most competetive.

I believe everyone has the drive to innovate and perfect, though to differing degrees. Your choice is totally consistent with my view – your refusal to personally netdeck comes from an understanding of what makes you happiest.

[CoglineErro]

A short and sweet article. An interesting read. First here is some negative comments meant to help furthur edits and your writing as a whole (feel free to ignore):

Spoiler:

1. The first section leaves me confused. Were you playing a game that Maggot Carrier won you? If so, why were you looking through his deck at the same time? Perhaps you were examining his decks and found one where Maggot Carrier was a win con? It's unclear to me.
2. The second paragraph repeats its ideas with different words a lot. It feels like you are forcing the point.
3. "Two fundamental actions exist: discovery and achievement, or innovation and perfection, or generation and reduction." Exist where and for what purpose? It connects to the last paragraph but you shouldn't start this with a fragment. Also, that's six actions. I know what you are meaning here, but you should always say it in a way that is the least confusing. I'd recommend wording it "In life fundamental actions exist:[list]."

But ther than those minor points, it was a really good read. Now if you'll allow me to try and tear apart your arguement. *clears throat*

You also have an assumption that ferments in this article. You assume that that the contexts of innovation and perfection are completely incompatible. That in order to have perfection, innovation must be eliminated. Otherwise, you could have a netdeck-free environment.

Take the car industry, for example. It is a lot like Magic deck building. There are standards in each for design (60-card deck, car frames; deck made of magic cards, car materials; decks only contain up to 4 of non-basic lands, cars have 4 wheels) but car innovation goes far beyond that. The new Prius Hybrid has a great deal of innovation. The outside is a unique design hoping to maximize speed and gas-usuage efficiency. The body is made out of bio-polymers in place of petroleum based plastics. They have a revamped user control panel designed to control the entire car from the driver's seat. The engine works to reduce emissions when idling. The gas mileage is unheard of. This is a highly anticipated car that is almost complete innovation.

The Prius, just like any deck, banks off the big ideas of the day. Black and green are strong colors, the same as good gas mileage is the keyword of the day. Aggro is big in the current meta, the same as people aren't buying as many luxury cars. Nonetheless, meta does not kill ingenuity and neither does it force netdecking. There is a meta among me and my friend, Brandon. I am ahead of him on the curve, but he constantly gets better. I could netdeck out some extended or legacy and win, but that would not serve any purpose. That would make us into mindless drones accepting each new deck. For when you surrender your ability to create new ideas and new things you surrender your ability to think.

My opinion is that if you win with a net deck, you have not truly won, but the creator of that deck won. yes there are certain elements that come into play when a player takes hold of a deck and actually plays it, but if I turned in a brilliant essay written by somebody else to a publishing company, have I earned the pay?

[Drathro]

Originally Posted by CoglineErro

My opinion is that if you win with a net deck, you have not truly won, but the creator of that deck won.

By this logic, every Super Bowl winner that used Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense didn't really win that Super Bowl. Either the Bengals (the team where Bill Walsh developed the offense) or Bill Walsh himself actually won those games. Wow, Bill Walsh must be the winningest team in the NFL!

[Mogg]

@CoglineErro

I'll consider your point on the argument and will respond.

At the moment, I want to address your points on the writing. Thank you for the feedback. I'm getting a much better idea of what I need to say to be clear. I agree on one and three:

Since you asked, I'll explain what exactly I wanted to say in the first paragraph:

I went to a friend's house, and he introduced me to Magic. He quickly taught me, and let me borrow his modified Replicator (Nesting Wurm precon) deck. It was a close game; I had the advantage of having his best deck and he had the advantage of being a better player. We both played our best (which is why I was proud of my win). Eventually, I was at 4 and he was at 1, and I had the Maggot Carrier to end it.

I was instantly hooked: Magic had all these options, but there were still correct ways to use them. I had to leave in a while, so I struggled between seeing as many of his decks as I could in that time, and actually understanding them. I was really happy to be playing Magic.

After a while (around 8th grade), I became sort of dependent on Magic, to the point where I didn't do much else, and I was a bit depressed (the use of "enthralled" was to imply Magic's ownership of me, rather than the reverse statement "I felt joy").

So, the intent of the first paragraph was to setup that joy is active (rather than passive), and that action occurs through two processes.

Point three:

I wrote that sentence to show that there are two processes, which dependent on context are applied in slightly different ways and go by different names. It was poorly phrased.

Point two:

This is the only place I disagree. I had to setup that joy is the end and achievement is the means, and I had to setup that achievement is a personal process. That is, that the joy of an experience is a result of your own investment in it.

If the opposite were true - if joy could be totally passive - then the means to obtain it would not be the processes I define, and I would not have an argument.

[Serra Redeemer]

Originally Posted by Mogg

Why? What is your standard for determining the validity of an action? I.e., what fundamental test does not apply to netdecking that makes its validity impossible to determine?

The presence of netdecks in your games is contained in four options:
A. No one may play a netdeck.
B. Everyone may play a netdeck.
C. You may not play a netdeck, but everyone else may.
D. You may play a netdeck, but no one else may.

Regardless of your choice to netdeck or not, the choice exists for your opponent, and I've not seen anyone who was impartial to that choice. That is, you seem to have a preference for A or C.

If the cause of a preference - and the effect of other actions to either further or hinder it - is understood, can it not be argued that an optimal solution exists, which maximizes each player's preference?

Wow, this is tough to answer, and I'm not sure I can word this right. So bear with me here.

I'll start historically. Back in the day Magic the Gathering didn't use to put decks up online or publish them because they felt that deckbuilding, a skill for Magic at the time, would hence deteriorate the game. This continued until they decided that the information could be useful to those getting in the game. Which it did, and I won't take away from that. But it also turned people who couldn't build a deck to save their lives into "netdeckers".

Personally, Professional Netdeckers who's only deck ideas MAINLY spurn from online. Changing a few cards here and there do not an original deck make. Overhaul of an Idea isn't netdecking.

I don't like Netdeckers but I can't stop them nor will I keep from playing them. Previous writings have done a lot to downgrade the Netdecker, making them seem evil. And they are not. (You are NOT contributing to the evil part. Your actually being philosophical about it.)

I personally fall into what you have divided into categories as a B Category. Even I netdeck, just so I can be competitive at FNM. For 8 People the meta here in Joplin is rough. Really good players come in and out, and almost all netdeck.

I also feel, you really can't create a deck anymore that can't be found online. All you have to do is go to the MDV Deck Database to see a Load of decks. And most of the decks there have been built by me Past and Present, and never having gone to the Database myself. IE: I could probably find a Wolf deck that looks almost Identical to the one I'm playing now, and it be in the Database, made by someone else. If you saw the deck in the Database, and had never seen mine until you played it, could you say that it was a deck I originally built, or would you say I copied it off some guy online and start calling me a netdecker. You might not, others will.

Originally Posted by CoglineErro

My opinion is that if you win with a net deck, you have not truly won, but the creator of that deck won. yes there are certain elements that come into play when a player takes hold of a deck and actually plays it, but if I turned in a brilliant essay written by somebody else to a publishing company, have I earned the pay?

I agree with this statement and have to say, if you copied someone else's essay, that is Plagiarism, and that is bad Cogline.

[Mogg]

@SerraRedeemer:

You make a useful clarification with the FNM example: Your objection to netdecking is that it becomes impossible for you to be original (to innovate, in the words of the article).

Now, I ask: Are you not trying to reconcile incompatible contexts? FNM may be a loose tournament format, but it does have a prize - given not to the most original deck, but to the one which wins most often.

One other comment:

Originally Posted by Serra Redeemer

If you saw the deck in the Database, and had never seen mine until you played it, could you say that it was a deck I originally built, or would you say I copied it off some guy online and start calling me a netdecker. You might not, others will.

This is also an important point. The issue here is not whether you can be original, but whether you can be recognized for your originality. I agree that netdecking is the default assumption when presented with a deck that could be a netdeck. Further, I agree that there is joy in recognition. And I add one default assumption: that a person is honest.

The last assumption is significant. If netdecking not sinful, then it is not an insult to be called a netdecker. If we assume honesty, then there can be recognition when you say: "I made this."

For the publication of decks, there are three options: all decks are public, some decks are public, or no decks are public. For netdecking, there are the four options I listed before.

To address your second concern - recognition: if we assume netdecking is legal, it would be necessary to not publish any decks; but this would presumably be a greater negation of recognition.

If we assume netdecking is illegal, then we can assume your deck is your creation. So, making netdecks illegal would be the correct action if innovation were the only - or far superior - motive. It is exactly here that I disagree with the criticism of netdeckers (explicit or implicit): two motives exist - innovation and perfection - each present in each person to some degree, and to different degrees in each person.

@CoglineErro:

Originally Posted by CoglineErro

Nonetheless, meta does not kill ingenuity and neither does it force netdecking.

My point is not that meta forces a person or people to netdeck. It does, however, force netdecking to be legal. That is, if you think a particular netdeck is the optimal deck for a given tournament, there should be no objection to playing it.

One other point: A sequence may have multiple instances of innovation and perfection. This is the case whenever a person builds a deck: he starts with an idea, refines it, finds another idea to incorporate, implements or discards it, and continues.

But the processes happen sequentially, not simultaneously. When you are brainstorming, you include every idea you consider, because it might have use. Perfecting at this point cuts you off from potential genius.

When you are revising, you discard anything which proves ineffective in testing. Testing requires a controlled environment; one with the fewest variables that have not themselves been tested.

[Serra Redeemer]

I've quit playing competitively here late due to one FNM, there were 6 out of 10 deck that were tourney Fairies. 4 of the decks shared the Exact same Main decklist. 3 of those 4 shared exactly Everything including sideboard. The top 4 were 4 Faerie decks. They were the exact same Main decks. 3 of those shared exactly everything. And this is conducive of the tourneys around my area here in SW MO. I've encountered the same problem at larger tourneys too, where 1/3rd of the decks were near replicas of each other. I'm not sure about PTQ's, I've only been to one. Standard to me are nothing but a bunch of drones IMO. I am definitely not insulting the actual person. Only the deckbuilding mentality itself.

I understand you trying to bring out the mentality of it all, but sometimes, I think it is simpler than most people make it.

[AHumbleWizard]

Formal logic has always brought a bitter taste to my mouth, as well as metaphysics. I’m trying to force myself to ignore all comments on ‘perfection’ and ‘joy’ and the creation of false dichotomies, as well as the considerable undercurrents of ‘geist’ (I can’t stand Hegel).

Simply put, different formats have different frameworks. The primary goal of high level tournaments is to win. Yes, you might be there to have fun just playing Magic (I myself plan to attend Dublin Nationals, if I can, just to experience it), but the focus is on points and prizes. Non-competitive casual, while still inherently competitive despite the name, is less about consistent victory. You can build a wonky deck that may be terribly clunky and inefficient, but is a bizarre blast to play with or against. Like a Shahrazad multiplayer deck containing all of the Unglued/hinged ‘Double’ cards.

Netdecking is largely necessary for a reliably competitive tournament. You need to know what is being played. The opposite is true for casual. You CAN netdeck, but that’s not really the point.

I think it’s also been forgotten that identical decks can and do play differently. Two players with the same deck may play it slightly differently based on their own tendencies. One might be adventurous and risk a one or six land hand, another might not. Decks themselves change every game. A different opening hand, fourth turn draw, or mana-colour availability will force different, though understandably restricted, plays, ignoring to some extent anything your opponent does. A game where your opponent opens with a perfect curve while all your answers lie at the bottom of your deck versus one where you have an answer for each move is likened to playing two different decks. Chance makes identical decks dissimilar. It makes one deck into many decks.

A general feeling of disgust towards netdecking is, however, entirely understandable. It can be boring and tedious to play against the same type of decks over and over again. Even at the high end me and my friends love watching for rogue decks just to see something different. Efficiency, though, is what it is. You start with what is tried and true and go from there. There is nothing particularly complicated about it.

[Old Fogey]

Back in my "free time" days, I played in some kind of Wizards sponsored event. I think it was called Arena. You played others for a rating. It was Mirage-Visions block. I went 18-0, using a Maro deck of my own concoction, as well as a deck using Sacred Mesa. Needless to say it was very satisfying. I don't know if there were netdecks of the format at the time, but if there were I would have researched them, and might have used one.
I just think that you need to play by the rules, and then anything goes. I feel netdecking is a great tool. The goal of a tournament is to win. I guess I just turn on my Spike when it comes to tournament preparation. (At the same time, I'm pretty casual when it comes to rules.)

There was a store in my area that held cool tournaments. The store owner would decide what you could use in your deck, and you'd need to design your deck accordingly. This could spur creative choices. I remember the Bruise decks (needed to be ), as well as the American decks (). I can picture this being adapted to a certain format, such as Standard, with ease. Just find a creative way to restrict certain key components of netdecks and see what happens.

[seandp]

Originally Posted by AHumbleWizard

Formal logic has always brought a bitter taste to my mouth, as well as metaphysics. I’m trying to force myself to ignore all comments on ‘perfection’ and ‘joy’ and the creation of false dichotomies, as well as the considerable undercurrents of ‘geist’ (I can’t stand Hegel).

Simply put, different formats have different frameworks. The primary goal of high level tournaments is to win. Yes, you might be there to have fun just playing Magic (I myself plan to attend Dublin Nationals, if I can, just to experience it), but the focus is on points and prizes. Non-competitive casual, while still inherently competitive despite the name, is less about consistent victory. You can build a wonky deck that may be terribly clunky and inefficient, but is a bizarre blast to play with or against. Like a Shahrazad multiplayer deck containing all of the Unglued/hinged ‘Double’ cards.

Netdecking is largely necessary for a reliably competitive tournament. You need to know what is being played. The opposite is true for casual. You CAN netdeck, but that’s not really the point.

I think it’s also been forgotten that identical decks can and do play differently. Two players with the same deck may play it slightly differently based on their own tendencies. One might be adventurous and risk a one or six land hand, another might not. Decks themselves change every game. A different opening hand, fourth turn draw, or mana-colour availability will force different, though understandably restricted, plays, ignoring to some extent anything your opponent does. A game where your opponent opens with a perfect curve while all your answers lie at the bottom of your deck versus one where you have an answer for each move is likened to playing two different decks. Chance makes identical decks dissimilar. It makes one deck into many decks.

A general feeling of disgust towards netdecking is, however, entirely understandable. It can be boring and tedious to play against the same type of decks over and over again. Even at the high end me and my friends love watching for rogue decks just to see something different. Efficiency, though, is what it is. You start with what is tried and true and go from there. There is nothing particularly complicated about it.

Why do you hate formal logic? You know its neccesary for science, engineering, politics, and the computer your using. Though I do agree, all these dichotomies are stupid.

"I think it’s also been forgotten that identical decks can and do play differently. Two players with the same deck may play it slightly differently based on their own tendencies." Yeah right. If they have gone through the trouble of netdecking they have gone through the trouble of looking up the optimal way of playing it. They will play it that way.

I love and hate netdeckers at the same time.

I love them because they are like spammers playing fighting games. They are completely predictable, makes em easy to beat. You know whats in their deck.

On the other hand I just can't respect netdeckers.

[AHumbleWizard]

I'm well aware of the necessity of it, I simply prefer considerably greater degree of relativism in my philosophy - and the article was all about philosophy.