I write articles sporadically. My muse is a particularly fickle one, motivated, it seems, almost randomly to shove a pen in my hand (or a keyboard in my face) and jack me up to create – or bitch, more often, since I am really quite a complainer. Occasionally, I will write a deck development article, or a tournament report, if I have a couple of interesting stories to relate or if I think a few people might find it useful, but more often, I take issue with someone else’s opinion and my natural argumentativeness and my inclination to grouse incessantly take over and I gin out some seven hundred page work that (hopefully) a few people find amusing, informative, something. It is generally a cathartic experience, and I am fortunate that a few editors have seen enough value (whether actual or simply amusement) in my limited productions that they are willing to post them even though they might have more selective appeal than, say, Rizzo, Flores or Alongi. This article is one of the latter sort – me bitching about a bunch of things that either baffle me or drive me insane with respect to internet magic writing.

1. The Gawd Damn Sideboard

OK, now, I liked the actual paper Duelist, and was disappointed to see it go. However, when it was discontinued, WOTC and Mark Rosewater assured us that we would continue to receive the same high quality strategy, news and related magic content as we could find in the print Duelist on the duelist online, and when that shut down, we were supposed to find it in Topdeck and the on Topdeck online or something. Eventually, what we have now is the paper sideboard, which I like very much, and the Sideboard online – the last best place we are supposed to get the "same high quality strategy, etc…"

Is that the case? Does the Sideboard give us a steady stream of information and insight? Well, the articles on Sideboard are usually interesting, and well written; WHEN ANYTHING IS ACTUALLY POSTED. I’m not 100 percent sure, but I think that the Sideboard’s last update was around May of 1965. How hard is it for a site like Sideboard – run by WOTC itself, to post one lousy article per day? This seems ludicrous to me. Aren’t there supposed to be weekly columnists? Lets chart it! (I love charts)

Wise Words: Last update: January 10^th (unless Gary considers doing an interview with Toby to satisfy his weekly obligation to the Sideboard). By the way, I may be wrong here, but are we still waiting for Odyssey Limited Review: Red and Odyssey Limited Review: Green? (Not to mention the (surely pending) Torment Limited Review series) I think we are, but I can’t swear to it. And maybe "waiting" is not really the right word, but you know what I mean. I guess that Gary is probably working on his book.

Week In Review: January 25^th (At least Alex is close)

Anything By Kibler: January 21^st (A super-gro metagame analysis posted just before the last weekend of the Q season - In Austria. See fine satirical article pointing this out at http://www.misetings.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=223

To be fair, Kibs probably submitted this article a week or so before, and the Sideboard apparently could not squeeze it in to the already jam-packed strategy offerings for the prior week. Oh, sorry, you probably don’t know what WAS posted the prior week. Lets chart that:

Week of January 14-18, 2002:

Monday, 1/14: squadoosh (that is, no update)
Tuesday 1/15: an additional helping of squadoosh (still no update)
Wednesday, 1/16: Turboland vs. the World (Zvi)
Thursday, 1/17: Preview: Grim Lavamancer (Price)
Week in Review Jan 10-17 (Shvartsman)
Friday, 1/18: Odyssey Review, Draft 1 (Zvi

So, you can see why the editors were unable to cram Kibs’ article in there, what with the overwhelming content they had already slated for the week.

OK, I am probably being a little harsh here. PTSD was the weekend before, which required travel and a lot of sideboard coverage through Sunday. GP Lisbon coverage started on Saturday (though nothing beyond the first 3 rounds of pairings and the first two rounds of feature matches was posted before late Sunday), and I guess that means someone went to Portugal, though that did not seem to affect posting the posting of articles on the 16-18^th. Nevertheless, four posts? IN a week?

How about last week? If I want to call it strictly a week, there have been NO updates this week, other than a press release about the reallocation of prize money from the now-cancelled APAC championships. None. Zero articles thus far this week. Fantastic job guys.

The last article that WAS posted discussed a Battle of Wits deck (by Toby Wachter) on the 30^th (that’s nine days ago). On the 29^th, there was the second half of an interview with Gary Wise conducted by Toby Wachter. On the 28^th there was the first half of an interview with Gary Wise conducted by Toby Wachter, and a press release/update on the suspensions (see item 8, below), as well as the final Zvi PTSD-Rochester review article.

So, since January 26^th, about two weeks, there have been a grand total of six posts to the Sideboard – and that’s allowing for "cheat" posts. That is, two of the posts were press releases, issued elsewhere and collaterally posted on the Sideboard, which would really reduce the number of relevant updates to four. And, two of the articles were really one article split in half to give us an illusion of more content. So really, there have been three updates.

What is the excuse for this?

Magicthegathering.com seems to be able to update every day. While I wish there were more daily content on the site, everything that is posted is well written, and most of it is likely very interesting to some sector of the magic community (Randy’s articles are particularly good, imo.) But I KNOW that EVERY DAY when I click onto magicthegathering.com at 9:30 or so, there will be one article, one question answered and one behind the scenes info McNugget. Always. Every single day since it started – and magicthegathering.com draws from a smaller pool of writers than Sideboard Online AND has a smaller editorial staff.

Why can magicthegathering.com update daily with actual content, while the Sideboard Online – run by the same company, generally addressing the same sort of topical material (though focusing more on pro-level play and strategy, news and event reporting) cannot? Beats the hell out of me. Lack of authors? They HAVE weekly columnists for goodness’ sake! (OK, occasionally, I understand that a columnist might have a personal emergency or something, but in general, if you are a weekly columnist, you have an obligation to put something together every week. Hence the name. Weekly. Columnist.) The Sideboard editorial staff has a vast pool of writers from which to draw: Off the top of my head, players who have written things for the Sideboard and who would probably do it again, if for no other reason that the very good compensation they receive in exchange (excluded are magicthegathering.com writes, who I assume are verboten to the Sideboard):

Gary Wise, Brian Kibler, Alex Shvartsman, Toby Wachter (though to be fair, Toby has authored 75 percent of the Sideboard’s content in the past two weeks), Dave Price, Mike Flores, Mike Kryzwicki, Mike Turian, Justin Gary, Zvi (though Zvi recently did a pretty in depth series of Rochester Draft review articles, so he has pulled plenty of weight), Mike Long, Chris Bishop, Rob Daugherty, Kai, Seth Burn, Andy J, Pat J, hell, I could probably name 30 or 40 more potential authors with talent and time. Almost any pro level player will write an article about SOMETHING if they are asked – upcoming PT format related matter excepted - and with Torment’s recent release, surely there is fresh topic matter available.

It just doesn’t look like anyone over there is trying at all. Come on, post some semi-timely moderately engaging article please! One a day should not be all that tough. Tell ya what - if you are having trouble coming up with decent authors and quality content, let me know, and I am sure I can help you figure something out. Also, yell at your weekly columnists, or hire some new (or better yet, additional) ones – having MORE than one article per day wouldn’t be the end of the world, just in case you ended up with too many conscientious authors :D.

2. What the…?

What is with this. Say you are making a deck. We’ll make it a block deck, just to cut down the card pool and we’ll make it mono black, to make it even easier. What creatures would be the ones you put in the deck? Just pick say, two or three (though for this exercise, most people will need only one guess). Think here:

.

.

.

OK. Got it?

Was one of the critters you named Nantuko Shade? Of course it was. Every single person on earth that read this article named Nantuko Shade. Wait a sec….. Everyone except…… Joe Gaier.

Here is his deck:

Now, its laughable that Nantuko Shade wouldn’t make the cut in this gem. However, that doesn’t bother me nearly as much as Joe not even bothering to mention WHY Nantuko Shade isn’t good enough. At least if he discussed it, people could say "my, what an insightful conclusion," or "well that doesn’t make and sense at all," or more likely "I have just wasted 40 second of my life reading this article. I want it back."

SO, if you decide that, in the course of building your deck, and then posting it as "good" to exclude maybe what would be almost universally considered a mandatory card in the deck, at least tell the readers why. Ok? Thanks.

3. Jay and the Names

Draino
Frog in a Blender
Green Rocket
64,000 Lire Solution

Man, I hate it when Jay Schneider names decks.

But what I think I hate more is that Jay assumes we all know the names of his decks and refer to his decks by those names (OK, Adrian Sullivan knows the names of every deck ever created, and each variant thereof, but he’s the only one) Jay will write an article after Onslaught comes out referencing the 64,000 Lire Solution or Frog-in-a-Blender, as if everyone will surely know what the heck he is talking about. I can almost guarantee that no one, in response to the question "what are you playing in the type II this weekend," will say "frog in a blender." Ever. The best you will get is "some green-red thing Jay Schneider posted up on Brainburst."

I ran these titles by a couple of people, and the only thing they could discern from either the names themselves or any personal knowledge of the decks were: (i) green rocket is probably green, (ii) frog in a blender is a website, and also probably green. One person asked me whether [the] Lire deck was "the one that Italian guy ran in Brasil?"

4. Writers War

Last year, the writer war was kinda fun. A neat concept, occurring around March Madness time. The finals were reasonable, Mike Flores, a terrific strategy writer with an excellent style, and John Rizzo, (who, incidentally, comes up with more total content on a weekly basis than Sideboard Online) who writes rambling musings in a unique and interesting manner, and who has a strong casual-to-PTQ-player following. I could see both of these guys in the finals, and I had voted for them all the way there. Personally, I voted for Flores in the finals, but I was OK with Rizzo winning. This year I don’t know what the hell is going on.

To begin with, I guarantee that at least a third of the writers are people who you personally have never heard of or read anything by.

A quiz:

Name any person that writes for MTGPlanet.

Name any person that writes for Card Shark

Name any person that writes for Deadnet.org.uk (assuming you do not actually live in the UK)

Don’t feel bad - I couldn’t do it either.

Now, this is not to say that these sites aren’t terrific – I have never been to them, (other than a link thru star city to a card shark thing, which was fine). Also, it is entirely possible that one or more of these authors is ridiculously good, and simply has not been discovered or does not want to write for a large site. But hey, that is strictly an uninformed value judgment by me, so I won’t pursue it any further.

The biggest question I have is why the hell would someone feel compelled to cheat at the writers war?

Here is an example. I was voting in the "Ferrett-Flores" pool on, I think, a Wednesday, (the votes were becoming hidden on Thursday) and I expected after voting that Flores and the Ferret would be 1-2 in some order. Imagine my surprise that the first place vote getter was not Flores OR the Ferret, but John Hornberg, a Pojo writer, with over twice the votes of either the Ferret or Flores. This is not to say anything negative about Mr. Hornberg’s writing – I linked over to Pojo to read some of his work, and while its not really my favorite stuff, it is decent and I appreciate the effort he is making to write on timely topics in an intelligent manner. It seems clear to me, however, that some people were packing the votes in.

Why? Cheating at the writers war is like……like…..well, I don’t know. Its so stupid that I am completely at a loss to come up with an analogy. One of my friends likened it to "cheating at poker when you are playing with strangers and not even betting," and I think that’s pretty close. What possible motivation could there be to do this? It baffles me.

The rules ask you to friggin’ vote once. So VOTE ONCE. Not 700 times, not through an IP changer, not because you are sitting in an internet café and can get everyone in the room to vote for you if you promise to shut up or leave or whatever would make them happy. If you don’t get the votes, maybe it means you are not the most well liked writer on the net – and having one or two guys – or you – really-like-you-a-whole-lot-no-even-more-than-that-yes-THAT-much, or garnering votes from people that have no idea what they are even voting for doesn’t change that fact. I assume there has been voting fraud going on here, and trust that CCG Prime will remedy that, as they claim that they do.

Seriously, I think that people who take the time to figure out how to circumvent the one-vote-per person rule on the writers war poll need (i) counseling, (ii) a friend, (iii) a couple of Hustlers or (iv) a good smack in the head. Your choice.

5. This Guy Kills Me. Actual Irony?

OK, this guy, Minga Wong, writes an article for MTGparadise a lot like this one (http://www.mtgparadise.com/articles/january2002/2601theory_behind.shtml) – bitching about the poor state of internet writing, Gary Wise’s habit of pointing out the obvious, etc. – and to a large extent I agree with a lot of his points. Here is the funny part – Minga states:

"One of the most annoying things I find while going through Internet articles for decks is the number of bad articles I encounter. From Flametongue Kavus that costs 2R to cast to dodgy deck lists, it makes me wonder have any of these writers ever played Magic at a tournament level before?"

and

"It is most frustrating to see people telling others what they already know by simply reading the card, as I feel it is an insult to my limited intellect to think that I am blind enough not to notice it. Yes, I know that Flametongue Kavu is only good against decks with creatures . . . "

Anyone recognize what "article" he is referring to as symptomatic of the poor state of internet writing in these excerpts? Yep. Team Academy’s Operation: Defecation – the intentionally bad article Stokinger submitted to CCG Prime to see if they would actually post it. Looks like it was even more realistic than Stok originally thought, lol.

6. Tournament Reports.

OK, three quick points.

First, if you don’t want to write one, don’t. If you do, make it of some possible interest to someone. No one forces you to write about your tournament experiences, and you are probably not getting paid for it. Try to give some actual game description and maybe let us in on your thought processes if you do choose to write. For example,

Round 1: I mized against some stickzz0r

Round 2: I got mana scr3w3d

Round 3: I smashed his dizz0m3. Scrub.

Round 4: see round 3.

is perhaps one of the most frustrating things ever to read. Anyone that writes stuff like this has also stolen 40 seconds of my life, and I want those back too. Give your pr0pz to your h0m33z in some other way that doesn’t require me to read your shit (or is that shizzit?), k?

Second, if you are playing constructed, include a decklist. It drives me nuts when someone writes a constructed report and does not include a decklist –

Example:

http://www.neutralground.net/Forums/ForumItem.asp?NewsID=1842&BackupLink=Forums/magic.asp

With the exception of a very, very, few extremely well written reports (I would read tournament reports by Bruce Cowley or John Shuler if I had to pay for them), very few people care about anything except the list and how it played out, so they can see what to do, not do, and tweak the deck – at the very least it will give people a context for your story, so when you top-rope your single copy of your secret tech card to, against all odds, pull out the semis, people are not baffled that the tech card was in your deck to begin with, or confused as to why the semis were a bad match-up in the first place, since they really don’t know what the hell you are playing. Further, almost all of those very, very, few reports that would be interesting without a list invariably include a list. Unless your report is incredibly amazing, give the list – it will make a lot more people read the report, and a whole lot more appreciate and enjoy it.

Third: If you are playing limited and writing a report, and you want to go thought the (generally fun and useful) what-would-YOU-have-built analysis, try to list the card pool in a some way that doesn’t make the reader want to shoot himself in the head after trying to figure out what the options are. Generally, a color breakdown is perfectly acceptable. If you want to divide it further, or eliminate the shrines and other utter chaff (oops, sorry, those are "skill testers," or "environment power balancers" or something, right? Let me say, by the way, I seem to have a lot of skill testing or environment balancing responsibilities fall on my shoulders at PTQs and the like – my rares in sealed the other day? They included Nefarious Lich, Shadowblood Ridge, Verdant Succession and Insist. At the prerelease they included Transcendence, False Memories, Overmaster and Retraced Image), that is fine too. However, as a guideline, listing the entire card pool in alphabetical order is retarded.

(See http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandsub.php?Article=2550. Now, this article, while maddening in terms of the card pool issue, is otherwise OK. A little lead in, decent detail on the matches, some thought processes – other than the card pool fiasco, a perfectly acceptable report. But man, the card pool thing. GAH!)

All of this being said, please consider writing some reports – and putting a little time into them. A lot of people like to read them, it is a good exercise in writing, and if you are good enough at it, you may get a little notoriety, and a lot of satisfaction.

Sixth: Frown

I want the dojo back.

Seventh: ISO

I can’t find a copy of Toby Elliot’s sealed deck generator anywhere. Is there one out there? Has it been updated to include invasion block? Odyssey? Torment? Anyone? At least Bregoli put up the ratings calculator.

Eighth: Ryan Fuller

Yeah, I voted for "cake and kazoos." http://www.misetings.com

Ryan was banned for a number of separate offenses – "Cheating - GP Capetown, Unsportsmanlike Conduct - GP Curitiba, Collusion- PT Los Angeles 2000, Significant Warning History"

If I am not way off base, a lot of people on the suspension/ban list have gotten 1 year terms for single instances of "cheating" and "collusion." In considering the penalty applied, we have to look at how sever the infractions are, right? Now, maybe surreptitiously not participating in a sealed deck swap is not as severe as say, drawing extra cards, but whatever penalty Fuller received, it certainly wasn't a DQ, since he finished 11^th.

http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/article.asp?x=GPCT01\844finstands

Perhaps offering to flip for the win if time ran out was not as severe as, say, directly offering a bribe (see http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/article.asp?x=GPDET01\846stollschneider or http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/article.asp?x=PTNOR01\696dqvancleave) – I think Fuller got a match loss (finishing 40^th).

And, though I can’t be sure, I don’t think throwing a deck at a judge resulted in any sort of significant penalty (Curitiba) since Ryan finished 23^rd, but that seems to be something which would be generally frowned upon. The one "lifetime ban" included on the banned players list (issued to the notorious Massimo Esposito) was based on a combination of ratings fraud and assaulting a judge, though I am sure that was much more severe than a simple deck-box-flinging.

What it seems to come down to is succinctly described by Seth Burn:

But I think that my friend and teammate Tom Kelleher (who had to play, and ended up beating, Ryan at PTNY teams last year) summed it up maybe a little more amusingly: Ryan REALLY got a year for EACH offense – he’s just serving his sentences concurrently.

So, while I agree that Ryan certainly deserved a little comeuppance for his behavior, I don’t think that he was given quite enough. Does he deserve more? I don’t know all the facts – each incident was less severe than those persons who received 1 year suspensions for similar incidents, but it seems like the aggregation of Ryan’s bad behavior should result in a little more than a year. Didn’t Satoshi Nakamura, whose rep is stellar, get DQ’d without prize from a tournament in which (I think) he top8’d for translating an offer to by one party to concede to another party for a share of the prize? If that were the standard, Ryan would surely have gotten a more severe penalty.

Perhaps the most reprehensible thing to me is that Ryan has been paid extremely well by Wizards in spite of his conduct – and I find it difficult to believe that Ryan’s toe-the-line style of play and generally unsportsmanlike or purposefully intimidating attitude did not contribute to his successes (though he is unquestionably extremely talented as well) - And I hate to see that sort of attitude rewarded.

I suppose the year off clears his PT points and knocks him off the masters train (where he made a lot of his money) – sort of. ABU cannot lose pro points in the year off (since, without Fuller, they cannot play) and they are currently rated number 6 in the world – definitely in shooting distance of a 2003 team masters appearance. Also, at the time of Fuller’s suspension, I think he was in the top couple rated type II players in the world (if not the top rated player) and again, since he will not be playing sanctioned magic for a year, there is a decent shot he could be Q’d for type II masters events in 2003 despite having no PT points.

For reference are Fuller’s winnings in the past year (another chart!):

PT LA 650*
PT Tokyo 9000
Tokyo Masters 20000
PT Barcelona 520
Barcelona Masters 6500
GP Valencia 1000
GP Prague 2400
GP Moscow 2400
GP Yokohama 1500
GP Turin 1000
Euro Champs 250
GP Capetown 500*
GP Hong Kong 800
GP Biarritz 250
GP Curitiba 250*
PT NY 600
New Orleans Masters 6500
PT SD 4100
SD Masters 25000
************************
Total in past year 83220

* events in which an incident upon which Fuller’s eventual suspension was based occurred (excluding accumulated warnings for unsportsmanlike conduct, etc.)

I love magic, but I gotta tell ya, I might be able to take a year off from sanctioned play for eighty five grand.

In any case, I can’t honestly say I’m going to miss him.

9. Flores Mises?

Gratz to Mike Flores on his wedding last Saturday. Who’d of thought that an attractive, (otherwise) intelligent, young woman like Katherine would tie the knot with a shmoe like Mike? The vows?

Officiator: Do you, "Michael J. Squirrel" Flores, take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?
Mike: Mise.
Officiator: Do you , Kathryn, take this man, er, Mizer, to be your lawfully wedded husband?
Katherine: I do. (Mike nudges Kartherine, looking expectantly) Oh, I mean, Mise.
Officiator: Are you sure?
Katherine: (Looks Mike over twice. Mike shifts nervously and smiles) Yeah, I’ll run it.
Officiator: By the power vested in me by the State of New York, I now pronounce you husband and wife…(Mike stamps foot, hands scrap of paper to officiator. Officiator reads and rolls eyes. squints at paper) ….I now pronounce you Savage Mizers. How Lucky! You may KISS the FACE.

Gratz you two. By the way, the "cracklin’ pork shank" at Maloney and Porcelli is b0rken. And Scores is utterly ridiculous; both are highly recommended.

10. Thanks….

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Commentary welcome, as always, at tongonation@hotmail.com.

Jon Becker
Tongo’s Counsel