Honestly, I know how Alex feels, since some people accuse me of being "elitist" when I respond to or refer to posts (and posters), too.


http://www.7towers.net/articles/021801Sizemore.htm

Tapped Out: Bad Vibes
Jason Sizemore
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I understand the 'snob' side of Magic. Maybe this is because I'm not a snob. Or more likely, it's because I've not emerged victorious in a PTQ event, so that I can grace the same hallowed halls as Jon Finkel, Mike Long, and Gary Wise. Whatever it is, I don't get it.

I'll be the first to admit, with Magic: The Gathering, there has always been a touch of arrogance with the game. Probably has something to do with it being an intellectual 'sport'. You have to carry some degree of smarts even to understand the rules of the game. But lately, I've gotten some bad vibes from the online Magic community.

Some of it's blatant, and some is not. A blatant example would be the sudden outcry against non-pro tour writers. A common opinion is that, unless you're Mr. Big Name Pro Player, you should not bother to write strategy. Only the pros know strategy. This makes perfect sense. Someone playing semi-competitive Magic for five or six years would not have any useful insight to give the neophyte player, or even the tech-seeking pro wannabe.

Here I present my exaggerated version of some of these 'vibes' I've come across in the past few months.

1)
Sheldon Menery, Starcity: Why on God's green Earth would I want to read, in 142 parts no less, about a deck that will never get played again?

Internet Rule: You should not waste your time writing about original deck ideas, since they're not tournament worthy.

I disagree with Sheldon on this one. Well-written articles about original decks stem new and sometimes potent ideas. It's when I read the same smack written about the same two or three decks that my interest starts to wane.

2)
Alex Shvartsman, The Sideboard: This week's top prize goes out to Israel Marques of Star City. Marques has a very unique style, as you will undoubtedly notice if you read any of his articles. I especially liked his very recent examination of a U/W Prison deck. Talking pure strategy, his analysis cannot hope to match those of top Pro players like Zvi or Darwin Kastle, but it is solid strategy for PTQ-level players, and it is written in a very entertaining and highly amusing fashion.

Internet Rule: You should not write a highly entertaining article detailing how to play U/W Control, lest you be labeled a 'good', but not a pro-level strategy writer.

Perhaps Israel should stick to cold, hard facts when writing strategy. Oh, and win a Pro Tour. If a famous pro had written this, it would have been on the front page of the Sideboard and would have been considered pro level advice. Israel's writing is some of the most innovative and original prose around the net. It doesn't take a pro to tell me how to play a U/W deck, just someone who is expressive and smart.

3)
Laura Karem, in a personal conversation: "Should I write an article about Invasion/Planeshift draft? Because my limited rating is rather low?"

Internet Rule: You should not write an opinion piece on how to draft, despite having won four sanctioned drafts in a row. That does not make your insight worth reading. In fact, if you're non-pro, just stick to writing tournament reports. That way, the pros and pro wannabes will get a feel of the metagame and other player's drafting strategy.

Laura's reticence to write about drafting reflects a fear many non-pro writers share. The recent outcry again non-pro writers will only add to the fear, and will keep other excellent players like Laura from expressing their pertinent opinions.

4)
John Rizzo: Bad times for Becky, Chief.

Internet Rule: If you're a rogue writer, and you write the most thought provoking articles on the Internet relating to our Magic community, you should realize you're wasting everyone's time. Btw, don't try writing strategy. You're not a pro.

Rizzo gets criticized as much as he's loved. Many of his articles are not strategy related, which draws the ire of the community. But they are damn entertaining, and that counts for something.

I'm told that pro written Magic articles draw the most traffic. This makes sense. On a personal level, when I'm out there digging around for the latest tech and for the most accurate description of the 'state of the game', I concentrate the hardest on pro articles. But I would be foolish to discard the advice of another skilled player because of their professional status. Those of us who read Rizzo's advice to Invasion draft B/U a month before Zvi or Alex confirmed Rizzo's discovery spent that month wielding a small, but important, edge over the rest of the world.

Strategy aside, I view Magic articles as a form of passive entertainment. I read them just as I would an Entertainment Weekly. Just as the marital adventures of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman interest me, Shawn Jackson's articles on CCGPrime entertain me. Whether you have strategy (accurate strategy, that is) in your article, or as long as you amuse me, I will read your what you have to say.

Finally, taking all the rules listed above, should I have to hang up the writer's hat. I'm not a pro. I write about wacky decks that probably will not see light of day at a Pro event. Sometimes I write articles that have little do with strategy.

Three strikes, I'm out?

No way. See you next time.

Tapped Out,
Jason Sizemore
a***o@y***o.com


http://www.7towers.net/articles/022001ashv.htm

Bad Rants: A Reply to Bad Vibes
Alex Shvartsman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAD RANTS

No one likes being called a snob.

I just finished reading an article by Jason Sizemore called Tapped Out: Bad Vibes.
In this piece of fine literature, Mr. Sizemore claims that evil Pros and Pro sympathizers out there are "keeping the man down" by discouraging average players from writing strategy articles. A sentiment that is being repeated more and more loudly around the 'Net lately.

At this point Mr. Sizemore proceeds to quote four Internet columnists (myself included), managing to completely misrepresent the statements of at least two of them.

The first "snob" in our lineup is Mr. Sheldon Menery - a level 3 judge and a columnist, writing for Star City and Mindripper. Recently, Mr. Menery wrote an article criticizing some of the Internet writing out there. In it, he writes:

"Why on God's green Earth would I want to read, in 142 parts no less, about a deck that will never get played again?"

If you haven't taken an extensive vacation away from the Internet, you can probably guess that he is referring to Zvi Mowshowitz' least successful series of articles called "My Fires", where Zvi talks about the deck he used to place in top 8 of a Pro Tour, perhaps in a bit too much detail.

Mr. Sizemore manages to interpret Sheldon's quote in the following manner:

"Internet Rule: You should not waste your time writing about original deck ideas, since they're not tournament worthy."

Huh?

At this point, Mr. Sizemore goes on to quote my recent "Week In Review" column. In every issue, I take it upon myself to recommend a piece of Internet writing published outside of The Sideboard. On the week in question, I write:

"This week's top prize goes out to Israel Marques of Star City. Marques has a very unique style, as you will undoubtedly notice if you read any of his articles. I especially liked his very recent examination of a U/W Prison deck. Talking pure strategy, his analysis cannot hope to match those of top Pro players like Zvi or Darwin Kastle, but it is solid strategy for PTQ-level players, and it is written in a very entertaining and highly amusing fashion."

Wow, I did not realize that recommending an article as the best read of the week was considered a snob.

Mr. Sizemore appears to take issue with me pointing out that Marques' grasp of actual strategy is exceeded by his ability to write a very entertaining article. He writes:

"Perhaps Israel should stick to cold, hard facts when writing strategy. Oh, and win a Pro Tour. If a famous pro had written this, it would have been on the front page of the Sideboard and would have been considered pro level advice. Israel's writing is some of the most innovative and original prose around the net. It doesn't take a pro to tell me how to play a U/W deck, just someone who is expressive and smart."

Let me briefly explain why I do not consider this article to offer "pro level advice." Marques builds his deck to contain something like 63 cards. He goes on to suggest that "Activating a Millstone yields card advantage." Were I a new player hoping to become better at Magic, I would not be helped by accepting those particular bits of advice.

That is precisely what separates a strategy article written by Israel Marques, from a strategy article written by Darwin Kastle.

Does that mean that Marques should cease writing? Of course not. His article happens to offer a lot of useful advice, even if he is wrong on a few points. It also happens to be written in a very entertaining manner, which makes it a better read than most stuff posted around the Internet.

In fact, Mr. Sizemore fails to present a single quote where a pro writer suggests that PTQ level players should not be writing strategy.

I cannot speak for other pros, but personally I feel that there is room for all kinds of strategy articles on the Internet. While a draft article written by Laura Karem or John Rizzo (other writers unfortunate enough to be quoted by Sizemore) might or might not prove ultimately useful to Pro Tour level players, it will almost certainly be helpful to a much larger group of casual and PTQ players out there.

I am not entirely snob-free. I must confess that pointless rants are a pet peeve of mine. Recently I had a lengthy discussion with NeutralGround.net writer Paul Leicht about the differences between a legitimate Issue article and a rant. I feel that a rant can be identified by several key tells:

- It complains about an issue that has already been written about by others
- It does not offer any NEW insight into that issue
- It does not offer viable (or any) solutions to whatever problem is talked about

In my humble opinion, Mr. Sizemore's article falls square into that category.

This is the first time I ever replied to a rant, though I've been itching to for a long time. My advice to webmasters and editors of various strategy sites out there is to excercise more control over their content. If someone submits a rant to your site, send it back to them with suggestions on how to turn it into a legitimate Issue article. If they don't, avoid wasting your readers' time by simply refusing to post it. When it comes to Magic content, quality is a lot more important than quantity.

Alex Shvartsman
s***s@r***c.net
Columnist, www.sideboard.com
Editor, www.meridianmagic.com