Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jul-22 11:39 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-20 7:30 am 

Joined: 2013-Aug-20 4:37 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Boston
Calling Teysa+PS a soft lock is a pretty generous application of the term. I assume they also hate things like Goblin Sharpshooter+Basilisk Collar?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-20 7:47 am 

Joined: 2011-Aug-18 3:35 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
JJackson wrote:
Calling Teysa+PS a soft lock is a pretty generous application of the term. I assume they also hate things like Goblin Sharpshooter+Basilisk Collar?


How are those NOT soft locks? You can't keep a creature out, sure. You can still remove either of the combo pieces and it's over.

Hard locks are hard locks. Iona + PS. Teferi + Knowledge Pool. Erayo + Arcane Lab. I'd even go as far as saying things like Silumgar + kormus bell + Urborg.

Nothing short of some niche answers that likely aren't in your deck or answers that are already on board can be done to get out of a hard lock. Any run of the mill removal spell will get you out of a soft lock.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-20 8:44 am 

Joined: 2013-Oct-09 7:02 am
Age: Elder Dragon
No one knows why PS is banned, so it's useless to speculate whether or not banning Iona would influence Painter's banned status.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-20 9:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
MrCool wrote:
No one knows why PS is banned, so it's useless to speculate whether or not banning Iona would influence Painter's banned status.

Image

_________________
"Degenerate, unfun decks generally come from degenerate, unfun players in my experience." - Cthulus Thrall

"- if this spell is played ten times in a given game then I suggest you warm up the tar and pluck some chickens" - tarnar

The internet's great at making noise, and poor at operating pants. There's gonna be half-dressed mobs screeching half-assed arguments for the rest of the 21st century - Kemev


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-21 4:33 pm 

Joined: 2015-Sep-27 9:10 am
Age: Hatchling
My policy is that if someone plays Iona, or I know it is in their deck, then the goal of every game isn't to win, its to make sure that they lose. Which gets problematic if there are more than one, but I think its a good policy.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-21 9:41 pm 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Ok, briefly got some more time on my hands.

Carthain wrote:
Because I also have history on my side. I do fully believe that if Iona was a problem in the majority of metagames, that she would likely be banned. Yet, she's got over 6 years of not being banned ... so I conclude that she's not an issue for the majority of groups.


So, I understand what you're saying here. But you have a level of faith in the status quo which I find...undeserved. There are quite a few cards that have been legal for a long time- some longer than Iona- that I think are banworthy (or, at least, a case could be made that they are). Tooth and Nail. Sol Ring. I'd provide more examples, but this is an Iona thread.

And even if you don't agree that that's the case now, it absolutely has been in the past. Half the cards on the banned list at the moment were legal for a lot longer than they should have been before they were axed. Suggesting that just because a card hasn't been banned yet it isn't a major problem is...short-sighted.

The bold comes back to the core issue for me. Why does a card need to be a problem in the majority of metagames, full stop? Isn't it enough that the card causes a problem in the majority of metagames where it appears? If nearly every time a card- not just Iona- is played in a metagame it needs to be handled with kid gloves to not ruin someone's fun, why are we letting that card be legal in a social format?

Carthain wrote:
Let me be more explicit then: In this case, the majority needs to. Why? Because she's been legal for over 6 years, has been brought up as a card desired by people to be banned, but hasn't been. Nothing about her has changed over the years - she's not got any errata, the format hasn't significantly changed in any way that relates to her ability ... so what else could be enough to suddenly make her ban worthy? A shift in how many metagames she's a problem in would do it.


Ok, so it's not a necessary condition per se...it's just necessary in this case because the RC hasn't banned her in a long time? This confuses me. It sounds like you're just appealing to the status quo again here.

Why would the length of time she's been legal matter at all? As you've said, the card hasn't changed. If she's been banworthy all that time, as I believe, she was banworthy when first printed. Surely when we're talking about cards that interact badly based on their effects it doesn't matter how long we've mistakenly kept her legal?

Carthain wrote:
And, as much as you keep saying she's ban-worthy based on the ban criteria (which is only a guideline) - she obviously isn't in the eyes of the RC, or else she would have been banned already, don't you think?


The RC make mistakes, even about which cards fit their own banning criteria. This is not accusing them of incompetence or anything, merely being human. I believe Iona is one such mistake, and inertia has kept it legal. I am aiming in this thread to try to convince the RC of said mistake. I am trying to change their minds. And the fact that the RC have not, despite following this thread, come in and told me that I've misunderstood those criteria seems to indicate they're at least open to persuasion on that front.

You're appealing throughout this post to the status quo to defend your own experiences, but I regard the status quo regarding Iona as a long-standing error. That Iona isn't banned yet does not indicate that your experience is more common than mine, unless you're prepared to say- by extension- that every card that's not banned, that people have asked to be banned, isn't a problem in the majority of metagames by the same reasoning. And if you are willing to say that, I've a Sol Ring to sell you.

Carthain wrote:
That's a form of politics. I'm not surprised you don't agree, as it seems you don't see Iona as a potential political card (while others do.) It may be somewhat anti-social ... but it's also potentially a case of "fighting-fire-with-fire." We've gotten rid of some problematic commanders in our local groups by doing this -- and the games we have are better because of it.


No, it's absolutely a form of politics. It's also being a jerk. A similar, more extreme example- "if you kill me now I'm targeting you exclusively in the next one." Also definitely politics. Also being a jerk, clearly. So if the political play Iona promotes is actually just jerkish play...you could see why I wouldn't put much emphasis on that as a positive benefit of Iona, right?

I do not dispute that anti-social tactics can be effective. I've been in similar groups and situations myself, and I know they often are. But I now believe we were wrong to approach it that way, because answering anti-social cards with anti-social play just adds more toxicity to the group as a whole even if it solves the current problem. Again, this just seems like Iona's adding more bad stuff to the format if this is the best way of dealing with her.

If you want an example we've literally just had of said "bad stuff":

Bantheprophet wrote:
My policy is that if someone plays Iona, or I know it is in their deck, then the goal of every game isn't to win, its to make sure that they lose. Which gets problematic if there are more than one, but I think its a good policy.


So now we've got someone being targeted on principle, in every game, just for running Iona. I'm questioning the value of Iona being legal, even assuming this tactic is effective, if this is what it does.

Carthain wrote:
Do you really think that's all there is? What about the very basic situation of "If you get rid of Iona, once she's gone I can help you do ______" ? Yes, while you are under the lock you are very limited in what you can accomplish -- but after 2-3 turns of being under a lock, surely you've drawn some things that you can target the way someone else might wish if they are willing to help you out.


No, that's not all there is. But I covered this already in multiple places. The logical answer to that question is, unless you need the locked player to do _______, "how do I know you'll keep your word once I kill Iona for you?" This isn't a meta-specific thing- I wouldn't trust a random player I'd never met before not to shiv me in exchange for my help.

You're right that after several turns of an Iona lock I've probably drawn something I could point in the direction the player who helped me wants...but if that's all I can offer, is that really worth it for the player who helped me to un-cripple me? My Path to Exile for their Vandalblast isn't really a good trade for me if the Path goes on the Iona and Vandalblast takes out something minor like Lightning Greaves, right?

_________________
Current Commanders: 6/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Prime Speaker Zegana (Simic Voltron).
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-22 7:43 am 

Joined: 2015-Sep-27 9:10 am
Age: Hatchling
Quote:
So now we've got someone being targeted on principle, in every game, just for running Iona. I'm questioning the value of Iona being legal, even assuming this tactic is effective, if this is what it does.


Well, I mean, I'm on the "ban her, she's 100% unfun" side and getting people to not run her is just the next best thing.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-24 2:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Swmystery wrote:
Suggesting that just because a card hasn't been banned yet it isn't a major problem is...short-sighted.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying if a card hasn't been banned yet, then there needs to be some reason to ban it now. The only reason I can come up with that would have changed between now and then is the frequency of appearance of the card. There have been times where the RC has said that a card could be problematic, but most groups avoid playing it, so there's no need to do anything format-wide for it.
Swmystery wrote:
Isn't it enough that the card causes a problem in the majority of metagames where it appears?
Apparently not. As I said, I'm pretty sure I've seen the RC say that if it only happens if a few metagames, then it's not a big enough problem to fix on a format-wide level.
Swmystery wrote:
If nearly every time a card- not just Iona- is played in a metagame it needs to be handled with kid gloves to not ruin someone's fun, why are we letting that card be legal in a social format?
Because we're grown ups. At least, we believe ourselves and others, and we have a social conduct to try to not impede other people's fun. "Fun" however is pretty subjective -- and some people do have fun with Iona -- so we let those people play her, but ideally they are polite enough to only play her with other people who are OK with it.

Swmystery wrote:
This confuses me. It sounds like you're just appealing to the status quo again here.
No, as I've said, I'm asking "why should she be banned now, when she hasn't been banned before?" And that's the only answer I can come up with. Feel free to provide another reason for it and we can discuss that.

Swmystery wrote:
If she's been banworthy all that time, as I believe
Except, what you believe isn't what happened. Just because you feel it should be banned, doesn't alter that the RC has disagreed with that for 6 years. So why would they change their minds now?
Swmystery wrote:
So if the political play Iona promotes is actually just jerkish play...you could see why I wouldn't put much emphasis on that as a positive benefit of Iona, right?
I'm not claiming here that is a positive benefit of Iona - you're creating a strawman. I'm showing how Iona (or other cards - as it was in fact a different card that our group did this with) can be handled at a metagame level where it is a potential problem.

Swmystery wrote:
But I now believe we were wrong to approach it that way, because answering anti-social cards with anti-social play just adds more toxicity to the group as a whole even if it solves the current problem. Again, this just seems like Iona's adding more bad stuff to the format if this is the best way of dealing with her.
You seem to be assuming that, once the toxic card is removed, that the "anti-social" play doesn't also disappear. At least in my experience, it does disappear. As, that's how you do the political play. You have to back up your stances.

Swmystery wrote:
So now we've got someone being targeted on principle, in every game, just for running Iona. I'm questioning the value of Iona being legal, even assuming this tactic is effective, if this is what it does.
Never said she was good for every metagame. This example is one where it obviously isn't.
Swmystery wrote:
No, that's not all there is. But I covered this already in multiple places. The logical answer to that question is, unless you need the locked player to do _______, "how do I know you'll keep your word once I kill Iona for you?"
Simply because if they don't follow up on their word, then you never help them in that situation again and the card becomes even worse for them, as they've burned their option to try to get out of it politically. Which means it's their own dumb-fault for not playing politics properly.

Swmystery wrote:
You're right that after several turns of an Iona lock I've probably drawn something I could point in the direction the player who helped me wants...but if that's all I can offer, is that really worth it for the player who helped me to un-cripple me? My Path to Exile for their Vandalblast isn't really a good trade for me if the Path goes on the Iona and Vandalblast takes out something minor like Lightning Greaves, right?
So..... don't agree to just do that? Ask for more for your PtE to target Iona? That you even propose this boggles my mind. You really must not play political things in your group.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-24 10:52 pm 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
I'm not saying that. I'm saying if a card hasn't been banned yet, then there needs to be some reason to ban it now. The only reason I can come up with that would have changed between now and then is the frequency of appearance of the card. There have been times where the RC has said that a card could be problematic, but most groups avoid playing it, so there's no need to do anything format-wide for it.


I regard the bolded portion as false. It is not the case that we need new reasons before we can consider a currently unbanned card for banning. It may well be that a card is banworthy under the present status quo and has not been recognised as such. I think Iona (et al) is a good example of this principle. Nothing about Iona has changed since it was printed, but since (imo) it was already banworthy when it was printed for interacting badly with the format, nothing needs to.

Carthain wrote:
Apparently not. As I said, I'm pretty sure I've seen the RC say that if it only happens in a few metagames, then it's not a big enough problem to fix on a format-wide level.


Interesting. Could you source this? I'm sceptical of this claim because we definitely have some banned cards that don't abide by this principle, some of them relatively recent. Unless Trade Secrets was wrecking metagames across the world? Or Braids?

[To be clear, I'm in favour of both of those bans].

Carthain wrote:
Because we're grown ups. At least, we believe ourselves and others, and we have a social conduct to try to not impede other people's fun. "Fun" however is pretty subjective -- and some people do have fun with Iona -- so we let those people play her, but ideally they are polite enough to only play her with other people who are OK with it.


Ok. Why does this logic not apply to Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Sylvan Primordial, or Sundering Titan? Some people definitely had fun with those, and they no more inherently impeded fun (in your terms) than Iona does. In fact, I'd say Iona is clearly worse on the amount of fun it drains from games because it often affects one player disproportionately. Shouldn't we treat all these cards the same if the social contract is our guiding principle?

Carthain wrote:
No, as I've said, I'm asking "why should she be banned now, when she hasn't been banned before?" And that's the only answer I can come up with. Feel free to provide another reason for it and we can discuss that.


I did:

Me wrote:
The RC make mistakes, even about which cards fit their own banning criteria. This is not accusing them of incompetence or anything, merely being human. I believe Iona is one such mistake, and inertia has kept it legal.


In other words- the RC is, apparently, mistaken about whether Iona fits their banning criteria, at least as outlined by Sheldon in the article I have been using as a source for this discussion. Specificially, Interacts Badly with the Format Structure and Creates Undesirable Game States/Situations. She ought to be banned now because she should have banned before.

Carthain wrote:
I'm not claiming here that is a positive benefit of Iona - you're creating a strawman. I'm showing how Iona (or other cards - as it was in fact a different card that our group did this with) can be handled at a metagame level where it is a potential problem.


I did not mean to say you did. I was responding to Papas point that Iona provides good politics. If "good politics" is actually just being a jerk, it's definitely not a point in favour of Iona.

As I said, your suggested method of handling Iona at a metagame level seems anti-social to me. I don't doubt it's effective at problem-solving, just whether it's the sort of thing we ought to be promoting as an answer to problematic cards. If, in a random group, we go from "person A is wrecking people's fun with Iona" to "person A's fun is being wrecked because people target him on principle for running Iona" we definitely haven't improved the situation. We've just swapped one type of anti-social play (Iona locks) for another (Archenemy). Even though it often works, it's not a good idea to promote it.

Carthain wrote:
You seem to be assuming that, once the toxic card is removed, that the "anti-social" play doesn't also disappear. At least in my experience, it does disappear. As, that's how you do the political play. You have to back up your stances.


In a sense it does. If person A stopped running Iona people would no longer target A for running Iona. However, the bad feeling on A's part for being made into Archenemy would most likely still persist, because they know it'll happen again if they play something else the group doesn't like. In the long-term, that sort of resentment definitely isn't good for playgroups. This is what I meant by "adds more toxicity to the group as a whole".

Carthain wrote:
Never said she was good for every metagame. This example is one where it obviously isn't.


I didn't say you did. I just said it's an example of the "bad stuff" Iona adds to the format beyond just locking people.

Carthain wrote:
Simply because if they don't follow up on their word, then you never help them in that situation again and the card becomes even worse for them, as they've burned their option to try to get out of it politically. Which means it's their own dumb-fault for not playing politics properly.


I think you might have misunderstood me. Here's the situation I have in mind.

A has Iona-locked B.
B appeals to C to remove Iona, offering "once Iona's gone I can help you do X"
C replies "how do I know you'll actually do X?"

Do you mean that if B doesn't keep their word to C, C will keep permitting Iona locks on B in future? So...C is now complicit in B having an awful time? Blaming B here rather than C seems rather backwards.

Carthain wrote:
So..... don't agree to just do that? Ask for more for your PtE to target Iona? That you even propose this boggles my mind. You really must not play political things in your group.


Oh, I do. Politics in my group just works by means of mutual exchange. And there is very little the mono-player can offer the Path player that provides as much value to the Path player as the mono-player being completely neutered. Once you realise this, it's clear that it's definitely not as simple as just saying "I'll do X for you if you get rid of Iona for me", because X would need to be huge in order to make it worth it. Like, saving them from death or something.

This is why I say the only time you can politically negotiate your way out of Iona locks (charity aside) is when they need you to deal with the Iona player. Because if they don't need you, and they're not going out of their way to be nice to you, why are they negotiating with you?

_________________
Current Commanders: 6/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Prime Speaker Zegana (Simic Voltron).
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-25 1:39 am 

Joined: 2013-Aug-20 4:37 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Boston
Swmystery wrote:
A has Iona-locked B.
B appeals to C to remove Iona, offering "once Iona's gone I can help you do X"
C replies "how do I know you'll actually do X?"

Do you mean that if B doesn't keep their word to C, C will keep permitting Iona locks on B in future? So...C is now complicit in B having an awful time? Blaming B here rather than C seems rather backwards.

Blaming the liar (B) instead of the dupe (C) is exactly what you should do. If somebody breaks promises they make in a game, they shouldn't expect people to believe them in future games.

If people can be trusted to make deals, you don't need it to be life or death to make it worth breaking an Iona lock. I still think that's a shitty way to have to deal with her and the format would be better without her, but it is the basic of politics in a repeat play group.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-25 2:30 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
JJackson wrote:
Blaming the liar (B) instead of the dupe (C) is exactly what you should do. If somebody breaks promises they make in a game, they shouldn't expect people to believe them in future games.


Fair. However, I'm still inclined to believe C's blameworthy here too. If you're knowingly permitting repeated Iona locks on someone, that strikes me as not ok regardless of what B has lied about. The response isn't anywhere near proportionate.

_________________
Current Commanders: 6/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Prime Speaker Zegana (Simic Voltron).
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-25 2:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Swmystery wrote:
Interesting. Could you source this? I'm sceptical of this claim because we definitely have some banned cards that don't abide by this principle, some of them relatively recent. Unless Trade Secrets was wrecking metagames across the world? Or Braids?
Unfortunatley no -- it would have been part of some thread somewhere ... and I couldn't tell you what the thread was originally about.

Also, you seem to be under the opinion that, if this were true, that it's a full-on requirement for every banning. That's not the case, and I didn't mean to imply it would be if I did. But, we're talking about a case where a card has been already decided to not be ban worthy (as this is not the first time Iona has been brought up for banning.)

Some cards like Trade Secrets may "skip" this guideline either due to the issues it otherwise creates, or because once it was looked at for banning, it was decided that it should be banned (which is not the case for Iona.)

Swmystery wrote:
Ok. Why does this logic not apply to Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix, Sylvan Primordial, or Sundering Titan?
Because they look like, and after playing with them, can seem like fun cards (at least for the first 3 - Sundering Titan is an exception here.) Iona may look like fun at first, but as I've said - after playing her, people realize that she makes things un-fun for people. It's nowhere as obvious for the first 3 cards you listed.

Remember, not all banning criteria are applied for each card that is banned (this is why I'm skipping over Sundering Titan).

Swmystery wrote:
In other words- the RC is, apparently, mistaken about whether Iona fits their banning criteria
You do realize that those "criteria" are just guidelines right? It's not a litmus test that gives you a positive or negative result on if a card should be banned. Each card is evaluated individually - which is why some cards are banned while other similar cards may not be banned.

Swmystery wrote:
I was responding to Papas point that Iona provides good politics. If "good politics" is actually just being a jerk, it's definitely not a point in favour of Iona.
Ugh. So... you're using one of my examples of how to mitigate her effect on your metagame with papa_funk's declaration that it's a political card? Those are two unrelated things. One is how to use politics to dissuade her from being played, the other is talking about "if you get rid of Iona, I can ...." to encourage politics/diplomacy between players. I was not talking about the same thing papa_funk was.

Swmystery wrote:
However, the bad feeling on A's part for being made into Archenemy would most likely still persist, because they know it'll happen again if they play something else the group doesn't like.
But then they also know how to easily get out of that situation. Also - it applies to every player, not just the one who was playing Iona. If the group doesn't like something, then the person playing it becomes a target. Also, the players are very up front about it "I'll attack ___ because they are running Iona." That's part of the diplomacy; you need to be clear about the reason for your actions.

Swmystery wrote:
A has Iona-locked B.
B appeals to C to remove Iona, offering "once Iona's gone I can help you do X"
C replies "how do I know you'll actually do X?"

Do you mean that if B doesn't keep their word to C, C will keep permitting Iona locks on B in future? So...C is now complicit in B having an awful time? Blaming B here rather than C seems rather backwards.
Your concept of politics and who is to blame is very twisted.
If B doesn't keep his/her word, then next time C isn't going to remove Iona when they can. So B has burned a bridge. Player B is the person at fault for Player C not helping to remove Iona in the future. Player C is not at fault, and any blame on Player C is misplaced. If you play with people who would blame Player C in this case - then I'm going back to my statement of "you play with a bunch of jerks who don't understand how to play politics; Thus Iona is not a card your group should be using."

Swmystery wrote:
And there is very little the mono-player can offer the Path player that provides as much value to the Path player as the mono-player being completely neutered.
... aaaaand we're back to you and your players being jerks. Which seems to show that it's a player issue in this case, which means it's not something that should be fixed by a format-wide ban of one or more cards.

You are valuing your opponent being neutered too much. You and your group don't play politics well, if at all beyond just basic politics.

In my group, if a green player was under Iona - they've offer to help another player do X once they are out from the lock. If that player agreed, they would do X (so that next time, people will believe they will uphold their promises when under an Iona lock). Then assuming the green player is about to do an alpha strike - they would avoid the player that helped them unless they can kill the whole table at once. If they can only kill 1 or 2 players, they announce that they aren't doing it to the player who helped them - thus ensuring people know that anyone who helps the green player out from under Iona gets favorable treatment from the green player after doing so - beyond what was initially offered.

I think your group wouldn't understand the "I promised to do X, so I should do X"; nor do they understand performing actions to reaffirm that certain behavior is appreciated and given consideration beyond what the initial bargain may be.

Swmystery wrote:
Because if they don't need you, and they're not going out of their way to be nice to you, why are they negotiating with you?
Yup, you really don't seem to understand politics beyond just the basics. Thus, you can't see Iona for the political card that she can be.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-25 3:11 am 

Joined: 2013-Aug-20 4:37 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Boston
Swmystery wrote:
However, I'm still inclined to believe C's blameworthy here too.

A man comes up to you on the street and says that he needs $2 to get gas since he ran out on his way to a job interview. He looks pretty legit, business casual attire and plastic gas can in hand, so you do him the solid and kick him $2. You watch him take your money and go buy a lotto ticket.

The next day, you see the same guy, same situation, asking for $2. What do you do?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-25 3:39 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
JJackson wrote:
A man comes up to you on the street and says that he needs $2 to get gas since he ran out on his way to a job interview. He looks pretty legit, business casual attire and plastic gas can in hand, so you do him the solid and kick him $2. You watch him take your money and go buy a lotto ticket.

The next day, you see the same guy, same situation, asking for $2. What do you do?


If I thought he'd kill himself if I didn't give him the $2...I'd still give him the $2.

Likewise, with Iona- if the choice is letting somebody be Iona locked repeatedly or letting them lie to me and get away with it, I'd shoot the Iona because it's still goddamn miserable for them.

_________________
Current Commanders: 6/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Prime Speaker Zegana (Simic Voltron).
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Case for Banning Iona
AgePosted: 2016-May-25 3:43 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
this conversation is a little silly.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: