So, in conclusion, I propose not a solution to the problem, but a solution to the thread: bring up new ideas and reasons as to why decklists should or should not be released. If none exist, then the thread is solved. If any do, then this thread has some time left before it rots and dies again.
Rots and dies? It's six pages long, which is roughly five and a half pages too long. And this thread has enough juice left in it to keep going for another week or so. And when this one goes away, another will crop up within a matter of weeks. Maybe a month. I don't have this boring cycle down to an exact science, but I know that this topic will never be solved, and yet it will continue to be discussed. And on that note, I now plan to discuss this topic. ;p
Elite players are constantly bringing up the fact that they aren't obligated to just hand lesser players their lists, card-for-card.
Of course this is the case! If you have something and someone else wants it, you certainly have the right to withhold it. If somebody does ask you for a card-for-card list, or for more information than you deem necessary, just respectfully tell them that you can only help them so much, or not at all. Or just blow them off. Whatever! Just quit coming onto threads like these and hammering the same point into our heads over and over as if we don't already understand it.
eriknance said:
The "secret deck" mentality serves to aid the "elite" players, this is no doubt. Gaining an advantage over one's opponent by means of secrecy is effective in winning (even if it is controversial). However, I'm starting to see a disturbing trend in which this mentality is an exercise of power over those who simply don't know where to start in building an effective deck in today's format. Understand that I'm not referring to decks that have been posted here on the Pokegym, but rather decks that remain a secret to everyone but the "elite."
I think that the phrase "exercise of power" is probably a bit too strong, especially in reference to decks that the Pokegym crowd doesn't even know about. When decks haven't hit the tournament scene yet, the surprise factor is really just the surprise factor. I think there's much less malice there than there is in the minds of the more priveleged players once a deck has been put through a tournament and it hits cyberspace. Even then, although you can detect an air of superiority in some of the better players' posts, I think a lot of them are just annoyed at people who just want the list, and aren't in earnest to really get down to the nitty-gritty and figure out what makes the list tick. A few admittedly handle their displeasure rather poorly. But back to the thing I was talking about earlier.
When a list is still being tested behind closed doors, I'm sure that the players doing the testing are aware of the advantage they have coming into a tournament, and that this effectively gives those who aren't "in the know" a disadvantage. It's their right to put those other players at a disadvantage. I think what you're after is the subtle air of something that makes you think that
they think that they're better than you. To rephrase, some players think more of themselves than they ought because they know stuff that others don't.
In my opinion, this is a pretty minor problem. I have encountered very few players who have this sense of condescension about them, and I've been to big events like Nationals and met a fair amount of people there. A lot of good players were easygoing people who just happen to be on "website X" or happened to know "person Y" who leaked lists to them from "website X". And I don't think there's a cure for the small percent of those who really need to get off their high horse. You can't control their actions, but you can control yours, passive as it sounds. If you extend a hand before and after every game, and laugh along with your opponent, it will (hopefully) make less of their disagreeable nature.
Prime, this hand-holding and get-along-ing that I've just described is probably what you want to happen at the table. I think you're half right in wanting that, and half wrong.
The part in which you are correct is the desire to have a fun and friendly Pokemon TCG experience. In an effort to do that, opponents should "make nice" and shake hands and maybe joke around a little in matches, and maybe exchange screen names or even talk decks afterwards. I don't think it's wrong to want to have fun at events, especially if that's your primary reason for going. I can see that you play for fun. Me, I play to win. When I win, I have fun. When I lose, I get over it and go onto the next round. The thing that's most fun for me probably isn't even playing the TCG, but seeing the VA and MD and even NC/SC area players and hanging out in an environment where Pokemon is an acceptable and even preferential discussion topic. I suppose you enjoy that too. That's also good.
Here's what isn't - your desire to forcibly change the behavior of the players that you don't agree with. This is where my "all you control is your response" doctrine comes in. If you have to face poor sport and elitist snob Bob, you DON'T go home and talk about how players like Bob are ruining the game. You extend courtesy to Bob during and even after the match, and you don't make a huge deal about it when you reach a computer with internet access. Your obsession, if you'll permit me to call it that, with posting on this board and defending your stance on whatever, probably stems from personal contact with people fitting the descriptions I've given thoughout the thread. I infer this from the comment you made about people "in your area" who behaved in that manner. Well, it's up to you, as the person who wants them to change, NOT to take your case to the masses, but to beat them at the table in courtesy, and maybe even Pokemon while you're at it. =)
Please don't say that I've "missed the point," as seems to be your first line of defense against... everything... and then just leave it at that. Maybe I did miss the point; I'm certainly capable of that. If you are going to say that, tell me what count I'm wrong on, and why.
Ummmm - I think I strayed from my original topic, which was that this thread has gone on long enough. Ooooooooops. I'll stop now. =(
