Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

You guys blew your chance

Status
Not open for further replies.
The more polarized an article or post is, the more extreme the responses to it will be.



A middle-of-the-road article (deck article or something) would not recieve nearly the criticism that this piece did.
 
What can I say? I love the real-world analogies with Pokemon TCG, so why not another... :cool:

Team HB and the Pokegym are currently engaging in Pre-WWI politics.

(FOR A PAINLESS SUMMARY OF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, GO DOWN TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS POST)

In other words, the slightest thing can trigger an all-out flame war. Comments such as

"For some reason, many high-level players seem to have atrocious luck"

and

"I have never lost to Mario in my life"

seem to convey subtle superiority or even cockiness. The authors may (and probably) not mean this, but in order to persuade opposition, you cannot afford sounding cocky at all.

One other big thing I noticed just now is that the intro of "Mario: Why?" simply suggests that people should look from the other point of view, but the conclusion says out right that Mario is not good. Here is where Kant/Bobby/et al fail, and where KG/Prime/Lawman/et al win big-time: the only decks people should be allowed to say suck in a persuasive, objective argument are theme decks and Zap-Turn-Dos (yes, it's that bad!!!). In hindsight, I think that if this article had even a week more of development, things wouldn't have turned out this way, and if they did, then it would've been exclusively due to the anti-anti-Mario camp.

Basically, the article wasn't outstanding in its wording/didn't try to reach out to Pro-Mario people, so the opposition found reason to jump on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I expected disagreement, but what really bothered me were the near personal attacks on Kant and I for being "elitist" or whatever. I don't care if people don't agree, and I don't really think either of us expected to change anyone's opinion. There was a list analysis in the orignial, but it got taken out because it might have come across as something personal. But there's not much point in arguing about the arguement (lol) since that thread is now locked.

I did, however, think the discussion from everyone that stayed calm and restrained from calling other people out wasn't that bad. If Chad/HB doesn't write articles, I might do it myself, since I'm not TOO awful at pokemon.
 
You should be able to take some critcs

If you believe in the validity of your article, then why should you care if you get criticized for it. If you believe that you are right, why is it any big deal at all to you if others say that you are wrong. Getting all upset over dissenting opinion is immature. Believe me if you wrote a Pro-Mario article you still would have been hit with other people telling you that you are all wet by having that viewpoint. People who agree with your point of view are always less likely to post then the individuals who disagree with you.

If you are going to write about your opinion you have to expect others to disagree. That is what free speech is al about, Pouting about being criticized for you ideas is just plain silly. You should just let the disagreement roll off of you back and not stop you from writing more articles in the future. But if for some reason you are unable to do that then you are right go ahead and stop writing if you cannot stand critics of your ideas.
 
Wow! What a fuss about nothing! You either play Mario and like it or you dont play Mario cos you hate it-your choice! And basically if you feel that you dont want criticism of an article that you write then dont post it! People will always express their opinions- I believe it's called free speech!
 
EDIT: The Game and me posted almost the same thing at the same time. Interesting.

Why the heck does anyone care if mario is called a deck or not. If someone wants to play it, let them. If someone wants to call it a deck, then by all means they can.

I don't understand the issue here. We are arguing over whether or not Mario should be allowed to called a deck. Is there a law that says a deck must be like this to be a deck?
No, there isn't.

Does Mario being called a deck change the Pokemon community at all?
Not to my knowledge.

I just do not understand why people are so mad over the Mario topic in general. I don't mean the "Mario. Why?" topic. What I mean is the stupid arguements it spawned. It's not like this is a ruling that PUI made that makes major changes i nthe game. We are arguing over whether or not 60 legal pokemon cards is allowed to be called a deck.

I am not for it one way or another. I am taking the "whatever floats your boat" thing. I don't care if it is called a deck or not and I cannot figure out why it is such a big deal if it is considered a deck or not.
 
While I do agree with the subject at hand, this thread in itself is totally pointless. It's like some kid in elementary school asking for help with his homework, and when denied, says, "FINE I was going to give you $5 if you helped me but you're not so now you don't get it haha."

Neither side is in the right.
 
JandPDS said:
If you are going to write about your opinion you have to expect others to disagree. That is what free speech is al about.
Click to expand...

This is the internet.

You could post 'bunnies are cute', and find someone who will disagree with you and call you stupid for it.
 
bunnies are certainly not cute. they bite heads off.

I also lol'd at Regis Neo's post.

and I also agree with Kettler, nice analogy btw :D

I think the article was very well written, and made very valid points, just people took it the wrong way. They thought it said something like "MARIO SUCKZ ZOMG" instead of the point of the article, which was "You can use Mario if you want, you just won't do well because it does not do well in today's metagame and there are more efficient and better options out there for a mono-fighting deck"
 
Black Mamba said:
While I do agree with the subject at hand, this thread in itself is totally pointless. It's like some kid in elementary school asking for help with his homework, and when denied, says, "FINE I was going to give you $5 if you helped me but you're not so now you don't get it haha."

Neither side is in the right.
Click to expand...

IMO, it's nothing like that. They posted a well-thought and well-supported article on why a deck was flawed, and they got all sorts of personal attacks (even by some mods on the board =/). Also, they weren't asking for anything in return.

I can understand where they are coming from - they try to further the Pokemon community, and they get personally attacked and flamed.
 
Bunnys are ugly you jerk!!!

LOL just wanted to be one of the 1st to prove you correct FS :) :biggrin:

Honestly, if the argument was made that Mario is a deck or not, that point is just idiocy. It is well known that FS himself played a Mario deck in Nationals this past year, so I think that is proof that Mario does infact exist. Any group 60 pokemon cards with at least one Basic Pokemon in it is a "DECK"

So there is not question that a deck make up of Machamp and Lucario exits and that it has been played by numerous people in various events from the time that Diamond & Pearl came out. So now that we all agree that the Mario deck exits in the Metagame then the only remaining question is if Mario is a good deck or a bad deck to play. That is the only point that can be debated. The answer to that question up to each person to based on their own individual thoughts and experience.
 
Last edited:
To be honest I think the problem was that the "Mario Why?" article was defiently a good article, however take a look back a few months and look at all the flaming that went on between Mario supports and non-supporters. Somehow the whole "Elite players must make a deck for it to be good" issue got involved.
By the time the "Mario. Why?" article was written and posted, the gap and rivarly between the two factions had become MUCH to large for the article to act as bridge for it. The article from an writing point of veiw can be seen as a pursuassive paper. It gives reasons, and does not give off that "hah we are better" message that some other posts on the subject do.
However as I said before, we have gone past the point of no return and I highy doubt there will EVER be an agreement on Mario or a thread about it without flaming.
 
Are you guys serious?
We published an article that was guaranteed to be controversial and you're surprised at it?

I was expecting to have to field these kinds of complaints from the pro-Mario side since it was their deck being savaged. You all are such delicate creatures that you can't stand having anyone tell you that your opinion on some subject is not right?

Wow. I can't tell you how surprised I am at this reaction. And disappointed.

Regarding Mods giving opinions: As long as they are not performing Mod duties, Mods can express their opinions on, well, an opinion topic. Again, sorry you don't get automatic agreement from staff.
Heck, I pushed for the publication of the article and I don't agree with it's premise. But I believe in pubbing things that are well presented so that discussion (and argument) can take place.

I hope you reconsider about writing articles on your own decks. They would be welcome.
But I can't guarantee that no one will ever disagree with you or one of your points.
The world just doesn't work that way. Best to learn that early.
 
The problem with what happened with the response to the article was that people just didn't pay ANY attention to the points that were being made in the article. Simply ignoring the points in the article and saying "but Mario won XXX battle roads, which are mostly Junior/Senior but whatever" as a counter-argument is what really led the discussion off-track.

There were some people having good discussion, but there were more people who fit the above mentioned bill.

If people want to argue for Mario, then simply give me good counter-points. Erik Nance, for example, gave some really good discussion as to why he thinks the deck isn't completely bad, which brought out good discussion from both sides.
 
ARMondak said:
IMO, it's nothing like that. They posted a well-thought and well-supported article on why a deck was flawed, and they got all sorts of personal attacks (even by some mods on the board =/). Also, they weren't asking for anything in return.

I can understand where they are coming from - they try to further the Pokemon community, and they get personally attacked and flamed.
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I meant. What I was getting at is more of the response than the putting up of the original article. The principle of it is telling people you WOULD have done something if they had acted differently on something that happened in the past.

Like I said before, I'm not one of the people who was against that article, it's just my opinion on this thread.
 
So now we're arguing over arguing over mario?

It was a very good article, but you were just asking for opinions (the article was opinion)...don't act childish over it...
 
Why does anyone care.

However, Team HB really has a right to do this. Some people were flat out low down in their personal attacks.
 
PokePop said:
Are you guys serious?
We published an article that was guaranteed to be controversial and you're surprised at it?
Click to expand...

Truth.

If you had kicked off things with something "Deckbuilding in the DP era, a new approach" where you outline general new ways to think about combining Pokemon differently and some ways you can use trainers to support that the you would have gotten more positive responses overall. Attacks tend to bring counterattacks or at least defensive ripostes. New ideas or other positive posts tend to get more positive repsonses as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top