[DECK] Time to get Served, bitches!

Deck Name : Time to get Served, bitches! Author : Norman S. Brown Jr Description : An Illusionary Kindred Amaranth Deck but with a new spin. You burn your own illusionary vampire in the blood hunt and possess them back out into play for some permanent mayhem. You will have to govern out one of the NEC weenies to make this work. Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 4 max: 10 average: 8.09 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5x Servius Marius Pus 10 ANI CHI DOM OBT POT obf !Nosferatu:4 1x Ignazio Giovanni 9 DOM FOR NEC POT obf Giovanni:3 1x Pherydima 8 DOM MYT NEC obt pot bishop Kiasyd:4 1x Don Michael Antoni 7 DOM NEC POT 2 votes Giovanni:4 1x Gualtiero Ghiberti 7 DOM NEC cel pot tha Giovanni:4 1x Raphaela Giovanni 6 DOM NEC pot pre Giovanni:4 1x Zygodat 6 AUS NEC pot Harbinger:4 1x Thomasso Ghiberti 4 NEC pot Giovanni:4 Library [90 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Action [19] 1x Daemonic Possession 9x Govern the Unaligned 9x Possession Action Modifier [10] 5x Call of the Hungry Dead 5x Conditioning Action Modifier/Combat [5] 5x Mirror Image Combat [34] 8x Amaranth 7x Burning Wrath 8x Illusions of the Kindred 8x Immortal Grapple 3x Thrown Sewer Lid Equipment [2] 2x Sargon Fragment, The Master [9] 1x Archon Investigation 2x Blood Doll 1x Nosferatu Kingdom 1x Perfectionist 1x Redeem the Lost Soul 1x Vast Wealth 2x Wash Reaction [11] 8x Deflection 3x On the Qui Vive Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Sat May 12 20:35:13 2007] _________________ Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On 12 May 2007 18:33:25 -0700, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: >You burn >your own illusionary vampire in the blood hunt Nope. The Illusion is gone as soon as the combat is completed. It doesn't hang around to be hunted.

[ quoted text not captured ] Aside from what the lasombra said, that the possessions should go, you should probably include some Death of my Conscience. If you're going to go for illusions of the kindred, and your illusioned-out vampire turns out to be servius, you get 3 additional cards minimum, which you will lose after combat anyway. Death of my conscience makes you discard those cards earlier, with a nice effect added. Cheers, B

In message <cdtc43ptvgbj6f80g...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes: >On 12 May 2007 18:33:25 -0700, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > >>You burn >>your own illusionary vampire in the blood hunt > >Nope. Yep. >The Illusion is gone as soon as the combat is completed. Yep. >It doesn't hang around to be hunted. It does. The resolution of the Blood Hunt happens immediately after Amaranth, before combat ends. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/dc0e8be4e032240b *** The blood hunt is not part of diablerie, but happens immediately after. In the case of Amaranth, it happens before combat ends. *** http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6888fc29e5ce1a4e *** > my Illusion of the Kindred diablerizes another vampire through > Amaranth, a bloodhunt is called and it is not in my favor : > A) does my illusion burn and goes to ash heap? A. *** -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

With an average 8.09 crypt and no multi-action, I see all kinds of problems. Also, possesion is a zero-stealth action. And IF you pull the trick off, all Illusions will voted to "live and let die" in every referendum thereafter. I like the idea though.

On May 12, 8:19 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 May 2007 18:33:25 -0700, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > >You burn > >your own illusionary vampire in the blood hunt > > Nope. > > The Illusion is gone as soon as the combat is completed. > It doesn't hang around to be hunted. Jame Coupe already quoted everything in his thread that is the basis for this deck. The trick works, but how to keep it working is the question. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 13, 2:58 am, agzocgud <per_math...@hotmail.com> wrote: > With an average 8.09 crypt and no multi-action, I see all kinds of > problems. The key is to influence out Servius and a Nec weenie (or get the Sargon Fragment on Servius which is even better) >Also, possesion is a zero-stealth action. Hence, why the Calls of the Hungry Dead are in the deck, but adding a Giuseppe, Gravedigger could be a good addition. And IF you pull > the trick off, all Illusions will voted to "live and let die" in every > referendum thereafter. I like the idea though. Yes, but some of the illusionary vampires have votes, so they could vote for their own demise. I lowered the crypt average but there are many 9-10 caps that have titles that would work in this deck. So perhaps I need to put them back in? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Aside from what the lasombra said, that the possessions should go, you > should probably include some Death of my Conscience. If you're going > to go for illusions of the kindred, and your illusioned-out vampire > turns out to be servius, you get 3 additional cards minimum, which you > will lose after combat anyway. > Death of my conscience makes you discard those cards earlier, with a > nice effect added. In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession gambit works. Death of my Conscience doesn't replace its cards until after combat which is when the illusionary Servius is gone and his effect has been removed so Death of My Conscience provides no appreciable bonus. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 13 mei, 19:28, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Aside from what the lasombra said, that the possessions should go, you > > should probably include some Death of my Conscience. If you're going > > to go for illusions of the kindred, and your illusioned-out vampire > > turns out to be servius, you get 3 additional cards minimum, which you > > will lose after combat anyway. > > Death of my conscience makes you discard those cards earlier, with a > > nice effect added. > > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > gambit works. No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players. Also, your delivery system doesn't work either. Even if your opponents are too dumb to burn your minions, you're trying to pass a 0 stealth undirected action with 5 block fails cards. This is not feasible. > Death of my Conscience doesn't replace its cards until after combat > which is when the illusionary Servius is gone and his effect has been > removed so Death of My Conscience provides no appreciable bonus. This is also incorrect. The essence of the abovementioned idea is that you will discard these cards regardlessly. Best to put them to use. At the same time you lose servius, the end of combat, your handsize has a positive modifier again from ending combat and replacing the cards from death of my conscience. How this replacement mechanic works was posed to LSJ on IRC, which he confirmed as per above. Cheers, Bram

> > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > > gambit works. > > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players. So nice of you to change your tune, you fucking imbecile. The combination works which is not what the Lasombra said. Why don't you go back to something you excel at, like molesting farm animals. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 13 mei, 20:12, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > > > gambit works. > > > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players. > > So nice of you to change your tune, you fucking imbecile. The > combination works which is not what the Lasombra said. > > Why don't you go back to something you excel at, like molesting farm > animals. Or giving you constructive deck advice. Your combo doesn't work. Really. So like the lasombra said, the possession should go. Daemonic Possession still works. Death of my Conscience + Servius + Illusions also works. But thanks for the unwarranted insults once again, one day you'll come up with a good one. Cheers, Bram

On May 13, 12:19 pm, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > On 13 mei, 20:12, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > > > > gambit works. > > > > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players. > > > So nice of you to change your tune, you fucking imbecile. The > > combination works which is not what the Lasombra said. > > > Why don't you go back to something you excel at, like molesting farm > > animals. > > Or giving you constructive deck advice. ...like insulting one's playgroup. > Your combo doesn't work. Really. It can work, but your arguement was that it can't work. So now you have changed your tune. Nice try. So like the lasombra said, the > possession should go. Daemonic Possession still works. > Death of my Conscience + Servius + Illusions also works. But get's you killed because you are cycling for nothing, and you realistically can't defend yourself against a predator with only 1 minion. > But thanks for the unwarranted insults once again, one day you'll come > up with a good one. It was just so entertaining to watch your fingers spasm from 2000 miles away. I had to try it again. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 13 mei, 20:43, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On May 13, 12:19 pm, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > > > On 13 mei, 20:12, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > > > > > gambit works. > > > > > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players. > > > > So nice of you to change your tune, you fucking imbecile. The > > > combination works which is not what the Lasombra said. > > > > Why don't you go back to something you excel at, like molesting farm > > > animals. > > > Or giving you constructive deck advice. > > ...like insulting one's playgroup. Like telling you that your combo does not work, unless you play with idiots. I then go on to assert your combo doesn't work. Try the whole logic thing before commenting. That was not an insult towards your playgroup. > > Your combo doesn't work. Really. > > It can work, but your arguement was that it can't work. So now you > have changed your tune. Nice try. Eh. It cannot work, unless you build decks which assume stupidity on the part of your playgroup. If you feel it does work, then you're the one insulting your playgroup. See above for explanation. > So like the lasombra said, the > > > possession should go. Daemonic Possession still works. > > Death of my Conscience + Servius + Illusions also works. > > But get's you killed because you are cycling for nothing, and you > realistically can't defend yourself against a predator with only 1 > minion. I'd like to point at your deck and remind you that you already are cycling for nothing, cannot defend yourself against a predator, not to mention your main idea doesn't work. However, it would be a meaningful addition to your deck, and would improve your deck. Would it make it actually work or be good? Probably not. > > But thanks for the unwarranted insults once again, one day you'll come > > up with a good one. > > It was just so entertaining to watch your fingers spasm from 2000 > miles away. I had to try it again. When you reach the elevated emotional and rational level usually associated with elementary school, let me know. But it's not the insults that tick me off, that was only that you weren't smart enough to understand what I said, and thus somehow assumed it was random. It took way too long to enable you to figure it out. Just continue acting like you don't know up from down. I'm sure it will not be difficult, and I'm sure ill take the bait. So about the deck: The block fails cards, should probably be stealth instead, since you do not play a large number. Also, you should remove the possessions unless you think your playgroup is stupid enough to burn your minions. Either that, or you need to somehow integrate votes into your crypt, so you can burn your own minions. Probably better to use some daemonic possessions instead, I guess. Most likely even better would be removing the amaranths and putting in graverobbings instead. Also, as per above, you should probably include, say, two death of my consciences. You're likely to bring out servius by virtue of illusions about 1-3 times. When you do, it's a good card to have, and not a bad card to have with some of the illusionary smallies either. Cheers, Bram

On May 13, 3:50 pm, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > On 13 mei, 20:43, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 12:19 pm, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > > > > On 13 mei, 20:12, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > > > > > > gambit works. > > > > > > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players. > > > > > So nice of you to change your tune, you fucking imbecile. The > > > > combination works which is not what the Lasombra said. > > > > > Why don't you go back to something you excel at, like molesting farm > > > > animals. > > > > Or giving you constructive deck advice. > > > ...like insulting one's playgroup. > > Like telling you that your combo does not work, unless you play with > idiots. I then go on to assert your combo doesn't work. I don't know when end of the gene pool that you got kicked out of, but I do know that the combo can work. See above about you doing something your good at, like barnyard shenanigans. > > > But thanks for the unwarranted insults once again, one day you'll come > > > up with a good one. > > > It was just so entertaining to watch your fingers spasm from 2000 > > miles away. I had to try it again. > > When you reach the elevated emotional and rational level usually > associated with elementary school, let me know. It's funny that you would mention schools since your mother's teaching a hands on sex education class. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] How about this? Deck Name : Time to get Served, bitches! v 2.0 Author : Norman S. Brown Jr Description : An Illusionary Kindred Amaranth Deck but with a new spin. You burn your own illusionary vampire in the blood hunt and possess them back out into play for some permanent mayhem. You will have to govern out one of the NEC weenies to make this work. Crypt and Library modified to emphasis vote-lock Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 7 max: 11 average: 9.25 ------------------------------------------------------------ 5x Servius Marius Pus 10 ANI CHI DOM OBT POT obf !Nosferatu:4 2x Pherydima 8 DOM MYT NEC obt pot bishop Kiasyd:4 2x Don Michael Antoni 7 DOM NEC POT 2 votes Giovanni:4 1x Eze, The Demon Pri 11 ANI NEC POT PRE THA aus magaji Guruhi:3 1x Carmine Giovanni 10 DOM NEC POT PRO ani pre 2 votes Giovanni:4 1x Luca Italicus 10 DOM FOR NEC OBT POT tha archbishop Lasombra:4 Library [90 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Action [15] 1x Daemonic Possession 8x Govern the Unaligned 6x Possession Action Modifier [5] 5x Call of the Hungry Dead Action Modifier/Combat [7] 5x Mirror Image 2x Ritual of the Bitter Rose Action Modifier/Reaction [5] 5x Spectral Divination Combat [33] 7x Amaranth 7x Burning Wrath 8x Illusions of the Kindred 8x Immortal Grapple 3x Thrown Sewer Lid Equipment [2] 2x Sargon Fragment, The Master [13] 1x Archon Investigation 3x Blood Doll 1x Legendary Vampire 1x Nosferatu Kingdom 1x Perfectionist 1x Redeem the Lost Soul 1x Regent 1x Shanty Town Hunting Ground 1x Vast Wealth 2x Wash Reaction [10] 8x Deflection 2x On the Qui Vive Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Mon May 14 07:06:30 2007] [ quoted text not captured ]

On 14 mei, 14:14, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > I don't know when end of the gene pool that you got kicked out of, but > I do know that the combo can work. See above about you doing > something your good at, like barnyard shenanigans. and: > It's funny that you would mention schools since your mother's teaching > a hands on sex education class. > > Comments Welcome, Well then. Here's the comment. Grow up. I mean, Jesus, man. So you guys don't like each other. At least act like you're grown up, even if you're not. At least be civilized to each other. I don't know how YOU would like it if someone would make comments like that about you and your mother in response to everything you say. I for one would get very very upset, much beyond the level appropriate for a situation where two people simply dislike each other because of things related to a card game. A f**king card game. I don't know if you're trying to win some "first to cry loses" contest, but this is ruining MY enjoyment of reading the threads on this NG. A while ago, someone on this NG asked me why I was so reluctant to meet CCG players outside my own group of friends. Well, this kind of behaviour is exactly why. It's keeping the "antisocial gamer geek"-prejudice alive and well. Norm, I like your deck ideas a lot and I enjoy reading how you always have a fresh take on the game, but this kind of childlike, immature, SAD kind of behaviour makes me never want to meet you in person. Please think about this, if even for a moment. -Teeka, outsider.

> Grow up. I mean, Jesus, man. So you guys don't like each other. You hit the nail on the head. I don't like Bram, and he doesn't like me. > At > least act like you're grown up, even if you're not. At least be > civilized to each other. > I don't know how YOU would like it if someone would make comments like > that about you and your mother in response to everything you say. This forum has absolutely nothing to do with me or my mother, but it pushes Bram's buttons in the same way he posts to push mine. > I > for one would get very very upset, much beyond the level appropriate > for a situation where two people simply dislike each other because of > things related to a card game. A f**king card game. I have no other reason in come in contact with Bram at all even when I travel internationally, so let's not have any illusions about our "dislike" of each other. Bram posts insulting posts. He could ignore my posts, but he doesn't. > I don't know if you're trying to win some "first to cry loses" > contest, but this is ruining MY enjoyment of reading the threads on > this NG. A while ago, someone on this NG asked me why I was so > reluctant to meet CCG players outside my own group of friends. Well, > this kind of behaviour is exactly why. It's keeping the "antisocial > gamer geek"-prejudice alive and well. That's a shame, but it is certainly a good way to keep your enjoyment of the game up. If you like playing with a variety of playgroups then you would probably have to meet some other players IRL. > Norm, I like your deck ideas a lot and I enjoy reading how you always > have a fresh take on the game, but this kind of childlike, immature, > SAD kind of behaviour makes me never want to meet you in person. That's your decision, and I am okay with it. You do what keeps you happy. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey guys, someone melt some butter, their serving fresh and fluffy popcorn! pop pop pop pop pop poppoppoppoppoppoppoppoppoppoppoppoppoppopPOPPOPPOPPOPPOPPOPPOPPOPPOPPOPpoppoppoppoppoppop poppoppop pop poppop pop

On 14 mei, 18:55, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > This forum has absolutely nothing to do with me or my mother, but it > pushes Bram's buttons in the same way he posts to push mine. > It also has nothing to do with him, or HIS mother. Yet you seem to find it necessary to insult both. Seriously, I really feel bad when threads on a forum about something I like turn into sad little flame-wars. Especially when they feature insults like the ones you use. Of course they're not directed at me, but I still dislike reading them, and I have no way of filtering the flaming out so I can just read about the game, which is all I want. And if I filtered out all post by certain users, I would miss out on lots of interesting things about the game, and I'd have less and less of a reason the visit the forum. I quit other forums about art, music, sports, etc before, because I couldn't just read about what I like for all the flaming. You push Bram's buttons and he pushes yours. And I, someone who knows neither of you, end up not wanting to read threads on this forum, even though I still like VTES. > Bram posts insulting posts. He could ignore > my posts, but he doesn't. > So you could be the better man and ignore what he writes. But you choose not to. Instead, you gladly take it a step further and try to win some imaginary contest. No one knows who started anymore, but no one wants to back down. Entire nations have fallen over that sort of stubbornness. Neither of you has anything to gain, so please just quit it. > That's your decision, and I am okay with it. You do what keeps you > happy. :) > What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. Please stop spoiling it for me.

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes: > What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. Please stop > spoiling it for me. Just some friendly, tried-and-true advice from a Usenet old-timer: - You can spend enormous amounts of effort trying to convince other people to change their habits, while they resist your efforts, OR, - you can delete without reading all the posts in an annoying thread, automatically or manually. The latter takes infinitely less effort and is far, far more likely to succeed. Usenet is not real life. If your neighbor is playing his stereo full blast at 3:00am in real life, you'd better confront him if you want to have some sleep. But in Usenet, just a few clicks on the keyboard remove the annoyance forever. HG -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1179160778.424339.147880 @e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > On 14 mei, 14:14, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> I don't know when end of the gene pool that you got kicked out of, but >> I do know that the combo can work. See above about you doing >> something your good at, like barnyard shenanigans. > > and: > >> It's funny that you would mention schools since your mother's teaching >> a hands on sex education class. >> >> Comments Welcome, > > Well then. Here's the comment. > > Grow up. I mean, Jesus, man. So you guys don't like each other. At > least act like you're grown up, even if you're not. At least be > civilized to each other. > I don't know how YOU would like it if someone would make comments like > that about you and your mother in response to ***everything you say***. *** emphasis mine. I'll only object to this characterization as overly broad. Norm intentionally rachets up the flame war only _in response_ to Bram's needing to comment on either Norm's (game play or deckbuilding) incompetence, or that of his playgroups. It seems a bit more honest to me that he is now skipping all of that pointless intermediate escalation, and goes straight to the "your mother" jokes in response. At least the thread counts stay lower that way, right? > I > for one would get very very upset, much beyond the level appropriate > for a situation where two people simply dislike each other because of > things related to a card game. A f**king card game. > In fact, its not even so much about the card game; Bram doesn't like Norm's particular habit of using Usenet to hash out unfinished and rough deck ideas (I guess because, like you, Bram is using Google Groups instead of The Real Usenet, which leaves him incapable of filtering out Norm's posts), and tries to do what he can to curtail Norm's activities through social pressures instead (which, of course, have the exact oppositve effect). > I don't know if you're trying to win some "first to cry loses" > contest, but this is ruining MY enjoyment of reading the threads on > this NG. A while ago, someone on this NG asked me why I was so > reluctant to meet CCG players outside my own group of friends. Well, > this kind of behaviour is exactly why. It's keeping the "antisocial > gamer geek"-prejudice alive and well. > Yeh. So you don't want to meet people from Usenet, because you're afraid they'll be similiar in real life? You've used the internet before, right? ;-) The only guy I've met from here who posts in a manner even close to resembling their literal self, is Peter Bakija (and even there, I only know him well enough to say that he's accurately captured in text his particular vocal mannerisms). For the rest of us, the medium (and our incompetency in using it) fails to give a full enough picture of the people behind the keyboard. IRL, I'm nowhere near as level-headed and rational as I try to be here... The real world of VTES players isn't fraught with the peril you assign it. A lack of fistfights at major VTES events is proof enough of this :-) > Norm, I like your deck ideas a lot and I enjoy reading how you always > have a fresh take on the game, but this kind of childlike, immature, > SAD kind of behaviour makes me never want to meet you in person. > A look at the exchange history between Norm and Bram should tell you that Norm is now just "skipping through the middle" of what inevitably happens when Bram decides to comment on what he perceives as incompetence on the part of Norm and/or his playgroup. But as far as I can see, Norm's role is still only a reactionary one in these exchanges. In the long run, you could look at it as saving you some extraneous reading. But, to each his own... Your best bet at a Usenet custom-tailored to your desires lies in downloading some freeware, and finding a newsserver address you can hook up to. Attempts to modify another's online behavior through social pressure are doomed to failure. DZ AW

On May 14, 8:10 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1179160778.424339.147880 > Your best bet at a Usenet custom-tailored to your desires lies in > downloading some freeware, and finding a newsserver address you can hook up > to. Attempts to modify another's online behavior through social pressure > are doomed to failure. > > DZ > AW You are failing to mention the best option available: 1) go to your favourite online retailer 2) put an extra big bag of virtua corn in your cart 3) pop it over the nice hot flames..... Yup popcorn rocks. still prefer the frothy foaming at the mouth stuff, but popcorns not bad.....

Janne Hägglund wrote: > Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes: > >> What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. Please stop >> spoiling it for me. > > > Just some friendly, tried-and-true advice from a Usenet old-timer: > > - You can spend enormous amounts of effort trying to convince other people > to change their habits, while they resist your efforts, OR, > > - you can delete without reading all the posts in an annoying thread, > automatically or manually. > > The latter takes infinitely less effort and is far, far more likely to > succeed. And the former is likely to lead to improved health of the newsgroup. Examining the effects of "what if everyone did that" is often illuminating (on both sides -- Teeka, the pair to whom Teeka had been replying). Which newsgroup would you rather have? More noise -> lower signal-to-noise. Now, what if others felt similarly and left for that reason? Not only has the signal-to-noise dropped, but that drop then causes a drop in signal (leading to a further decrease in signal-to-noise). See rec.games.board 's fate. > Usenet is not real life. If your neighbor is playing his stereo full blast > at 3:00am in real life, you'd better confront him if you want to have some > sleep. > > But in Usenet, just a few clicks on the keyboard remove the annoyance > forever. ... the annoyance and possibly (eventually) the rest as well. The newsgroup would be a better place without the sub-juvenile flame wars. So, FWIW: good job, Teeka.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > Janne Hägglund wrote: > > Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes: > > > >> What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. Please stop > >> spoiling it for me. > > Just some friendly, tried-and-true advice from a Usenet old-timer: > > - You can spend enormous amounts of effort trying to convince other people > > to change their habits, while they resist your efforts, OR, > > - you can delete without reading all the posts in an annoying thread, > > automatically or manually. > > The latter takes infinitely less effort and is far, far more likely to > > succeed. > > And the former is likely to lead to improved health of the newsgroup. You have a good point. I was assuming this flame war to be an isolated incident between the two participants, not a harbringer of things to come. Is the extraordinarily courteous and civilized nature of this newsgroup a natural order of things, or the result of a relentless campaign of firefighting? Let's not find out. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 13 May, 18:24, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On May 13, 2:58 am, agzocgud <per_math...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > With an average 8.09 crypt and no multi-action, I see all kinds of > > problems. [snip] > > the trick off, all Illusions will voted to "live and let die" in every > > referendum thereafter. I like the idea though. > > Yes, but some of the illusionary vampires have votes, so they could > vote for their own demise. I lowered the crypt average but there are > many 9-10 caps that have titles that would work in this deck. So > perhaps I need to put them back in? I think the best use for the trick remains the Turbo-Alexandra deck if you really want to go with the Amaranth angle. 8 votes, multi-action and +3 bleed does seem rather too good to ignore, even if you can't get the burned guys back. A more stable way of achieving the same end and using Possession to gain guys would be to use Body of Sun and Illusions at inferior. Then you can choose to burn the striking vampire as long as you have the acting vampire. Going with gp3/4: Carmine Giovanni and especially Mugur Sabau look pretty good with Alexis Sorokin Danielle Diron. Not a bad 4 man army deck. Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] I was looking as Mugur for a potential Gangrel Potence Diablerie deck with the Path of Death and Soul, but I haven't quite gotten all the cogs together. Body of Sun is so wrong for a Possession deck, that it's right. :) On a similar note I was also thinking weenie Thaumaturgy with Burst of Sunlight, Shotgun Ritual and Weather Control to burn my guys as well.

On May 14, 12:41 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 14 mei, 18:55, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > This forum has absolutely nothing to do with me or my mother, but it > > pushes Bram's buttons in the same way he posts to push mine. > > It also has nothing to do with him, or HIS mother. Yet you seem to > find it necessary to insult both. He starts. I finish. It works that way. > Seriously, I really feel bad when threads on a forum about something I > like turn into sad little flame-wars. Especially when they feature > insults like the ones you use. If you are feint of heart or sensitive then there are a few personality combonations here that you should avoid such as XZealot and Bram Vink, Derek Ray and Ector, Bluedevil and Reyda, and on, and on, and on.... > > Bram posts insulting posts. He could ignore > > my posts, but he doesn't. > > So you could be the better man and ignore what he writes. But you > choose not to. Instead, you gladly take it a step further and try to > win some imaginary contest. VTES is pretty imaginary too. :) > > That's your decision, and I am okay with it. You do what keeps you > > happy. :) > > What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. Please stop > spoiling it for me. Why don't you follow Atomweaver's advice and get a newsreader. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Bronw, Jr [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On May 14, 12:41 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> It also has nothing to do with him, or HIS mother. Yet you seem to >> find it necessary to insult both. > > He starts. I finish. It works that way. When he starts, yes. Sometimes you skip that step, though. What would work better is for each of you (independently of the other) to go ahead and decide to be finished with the other and stop the mess. >> What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. Please stop >> spoiling it for me. > > Why don't you follow Atomweaver's advice and get a newsreader. I have a real newsreader. It does no good if I want to read your constructive comments.

On May 14, 3:05 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > On May 14, 12:41 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> It also has nothing to do with him, or HIS mother. Yet you seem to > >> find it necessary to insult both. > > > He starts. I finish. It works that way. > > When he starts, yes. > Sometimes you skip that step, though. Sure, and you can take the back roads rather than the interstate to get from point A to Point B. They call that the scenic route. Bram has gone to great lengths to misrepresent his motives and, generally, waste my time. I like to show him how much I appreciate his behavior. > What would work better is for each of you (independently of the other) to go > ahead and decide to be finished with the other and stop the mess. Sure would be nice. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 14, 8:10 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1179160778.424339.147880 > @e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On 14 mei, 14:14, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >> I don't know when end of the gene pool that you got kicked out of, but > >> I do know that the combo can work. See above about you doing > >> something your good at, like barnyard shenanigans. > > > and: > > >> It's funny that you would mention schools since your mother's teaching > >> a hands on sex education class. > > >> Comments Welcome, > > > Well then. Here's the comment. > > > Grow up. I mean, Jesus, man. So you guys don't like each other. At > > least act like you're grown up, even if you're not. At least be > > civilized to each other. > > I don't know how YOU would like it if someone would make comments like > > that about you and your mother in response to ***everything you say***. > > *** emphasis mine. I'll only object to this characterization as overly > broad. Norm intentionally rachets up the flame war only _in response_ to > Bram's needing to comment on either Norm's (game play or deckbuilding) > incompetence, or that of his playgroups. It seems a bit more honest to me > that he is now skipping all of that pointless intermediate escalation, and > goes straight to the "your mother" jokes in response. At least the thread > counts stay lower that way, right? Actually, I haven't commented on the aptitude of his playgroup here, nor do I think this would escalate. As per above, I assume his playgroup is competent enough to not burn his vampires, and thus his whole combo fails. Also, as per above, if Norm doesn't manage to fit anything sensible in his posts, I'm not responding to them. If he feels it's good for his selfesteem/ego/whatever to reply to my posts with nonsense, that's fine. > > I > > for one would get very very upset, much beyond the level appropriate > > for a situation where two people simply dislike each other because of > > things related to a card game. A f**king card game. > > In fact, its not even so much about the card game; Bram doesn't like Norm's > particular habit of using Usenet to hash out unfinished and rough deck > ideas (I guess because, like you, Bram is using Google Groups instead of > The Real Usenet, which leaves him incapable of filtering out Norm's posts), > and tries to do what he can to curtail Norm's activities through social > pressures instead (which, of course, have the exact oppositve effect). I do not strictly have a problem with Norm's habit of using the Usenet to hash out unfinished and rough deck ideas, I have a problem with him not being able to take criticism on those deck ideas. Basically there's 2 usual scenarios: Norm: Deck Idea A. Bram: Deck Idea B does everything this does and does it better Norm: Ad hominem Norm: Deck Idea A. Bram: That doesn't work, for these reasons. Norm: It won a game. Bram: The deck fails if anyone has X, so if that was present in that game, either you were lucky, or they weren't playing correctly. I don't mind new ideas at all. I actually do like to try out new things myself. However, when I do so, I try to make sure there's at least something my new idea does better than a tried and tested working deck. If someone else doesn't, and their deck idea just is definately sub- par, It's not unlikely I will comment in that vein of thought. > > I don't know if you're trying to win some "first to cry loses" > > contest, but this is ruining MY enjoyment of reading the threads on > > this NG. A while ago, someone on this NG asked me why I was so > > reluctant to meet CCG players outside my own group of friends. Well, > > this kind of behaviour is exactly why. It's keeping the "antisocial > > gamer geek"-prejudice alive and well. > > Yeh. So you don't want to meet people from Usenet, because you're afraid > they'll be similiar in real life? You've used the internet before, right? > ;-) The only guy I've met from here who posts in a manner even close to > resembling their literal self, is Peter Bakija (and even there, I only know > him well enough to say that he's accurately captured in text his particular > vocal mannerisms). For the rest of us, the medium (and our incompetency in > using it) fails to give a full enough picture of the people behind the > keyboard. IRL, I'm nowhere near as level-headed and rational as I try to > be here... The real world of VTES players isn't fraught with the peril you > assign it. A lack of fistfights at major VTES events is proof enough of > this :-) Actually, if someone would respond to my criticism of his deck the way norm does, I'd respond in exactly the same way. I doubt he would, though. Secondly, I like to think I'm a fairly decent guy. But sure, if someone I dislike is acting like an idiot, I might tell him not to be stupid. I also don't like being insulted much. Unless as per above, baseless, on the internet, and so on. > > Norm, I like your deck ideas a lot and I enjoy reading how you always > > have a fresh take on the game, but this kind of childlike, immature, > > SAD kind of behaviour makes me never want to meet you in person. > > A look at the exchange history between Norm and Bram should tell you that > Norm is now just "skipping through the middle" of what inevitably happens > when Bram decides to comment on what he perceives as incompetence on the > part of Norm and/or his playgroup. But as far as I can see, Norm's role is > still only a reactionary one in these exchanges. In the long run, you > could look at it as saving you some extraneous reading. But, to each his > own... Yes, if Norm consistently wins with decks like these, I would take that as a failing on part of his playgroup. I don't think, however, that's the case. However, I do not think this inevitably happens. However, if Norm would able to take criticism better, I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem at all. If he posts a deck, he's putting it up for criticism. That can both be constructive (you should add this card to make it better) and it can be negative (better to scrap this idea, since it would require massive changing to make decent) and yes, sometimes I do post a sarcastic remark to a deck. Also, you can disagree with criticism without ad hominem attacks. Norm usually fails in that respect. The most recent serious disagreement was about a deck that would absolutely never work, which I gave a sarcastic comment on, followed with Norm making comments about my mother, me telling him his comment was pathetic, him not understanding it. The second would've been a deck which I did give a serious comment on, which Norm followed with telling me I am not creative, unskilled, and use other people's decks to win. > Your best bet at a Usenet custom-tailored to your desires lies in > downloading some freeware, and finding a newsserver address you can hook up > to. Attempts to modify another's online behavior through social pressure > are doomed to failure. > > DZ > AW Hope that explains things better for you! Cheers, Bram

munch....munch... heee this isn't like the end part of a movie? is it? Where there is a reunion, they both become friends and giving a wise lesson: "It's not about who wins". Some kind of emo disney ending. Or is it like 2 smokin barrels where the all kill each other in the end? to be continued.... pop pop pop hmmm.. more popcorn! Oortje

[ quoted text not captured ] Oortje, I'll bring the butter, you bring the salt, we'll split the cost of the beers, m,'kay?

Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in news:1179216011.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On May 14, 8:10 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> *** emphasis mine. I'll only object to this characterization as >> overly broad. Norm intentionally rachets up the flame war only _in >> response_ to Bram's needing to comment on either Norm's (game play or >> deckbuilding) incompetence, or that of his playgroups. (snip) > Actually, I haven't commented on the aptitude of his playgroup here, From Message-ID: <1179079277....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Xzealot: > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > gambit works. Bram: No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." That is you, insulting the people Norm plays against, his playgroup. *shrug* > nor do I think this would escalate. As per above, I assume his > playgroup is competent enough to not burn his vampires, and thus his > whole combo fails. > Also, as per above, if Norm doesn't manage to fit anything sensible in > his posts, I'm not responding to them. If he feels it's good for his > selfesteem/ego/whatever to reply to my posts with nonsense, that's > fine. > Message-ID: <1179080353.3...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >> In fact, its not even so much about the card game; Bram doesn't like >> Norm's particular habit of using Usenet to hash out unfinished and >> rough deck ideas (I guess because, like you, Bram is using Google >> Groups instead of The Real Usenet, which leaves him incapable of >> filtering out Norm's posts), and tries to do what he can to curtail >> Norm's activities through social pressures instead (which, of course, >> have the exact oppositve effect). > > I do not strictly have a problem with Norm's habit of using the Usenet > to hash out unfinished and rough deck ideas, I have a problem with him > not being able to take criticism on those deck ideas. In the abscence of comments about how stupid he or his opponents are, he takes (constructive) criticism and suggestions just fine... Message-ID: <1178883271.8...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <1178636239.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <1178637157.8...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> [ quoted text not captured ] This, I don't doubt. The internet is _great_ at bringing out the worst in people... >> A look at the exchange history between Norm and Bram should tell >> you that >> Norm is now just "skipping through the middle" of what inevitably >> happens when Bram decides to comment on what he perceives as >> incompetence on the part of Norm and/or his playgroup. But as far as >> I can see, Norm's role is still only a reactionary one in these >> exchanges. In the long run, you could look at it as saving you some >> extraneous reading. But, to each his own... > > Yes, if Norm consistently wins with decks like these, I would take > that as a failing on part of his playgroup. I don't think, however, > that's the case. > Even Norm states that this is not the case. Hell, this is early research. A high rate of failure is the norm (heh, a pun).... > However, I do not think this inevitably happens. However, if Norm > would able to take criticism better, I'm sure there wouldn't be a > problem at all. Yeah, what with you two having a history now, its probably like LSJ says. A "cooling off" period may be in order. I'd suggest if "problem free" is really how you'd both prefer it, don't bother with replying to each other at all until, say... June 15. Then, pick it up again and see where things go. > If he posts a deck, he's putting it up for criticism. That can both be > constructive (you should add this card to make it better) and it can > be negative (better to scrap this idea, since it would require massive > changing to make decent) That latter is actually not so useful, within the context of experimental deckwork, anyways. The objective here is not necessarily to build a deck to win each game against the likes of Malk94, Triple A's, Nosferatu Hate You! and Short Leash Bleed. The objective is to construct a reasonable framework around which to generate interesting combinations of less-used cards, first in search of potentially useful new combos. Second, possibly as a training method for draft, where having fore-knowledge of unusual combos and what is more powerful from the weaker end of the spectrum of cards can be very helpful. > and yes, sometimes I do post a sarcastic > remark to a deck. Also, you can disagree with criticism without ad > hominem attacks. Norm usually fails in that respect. > "Xzealot: In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession gambit works. Bram: No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." Please link me to an instance where norm went ad hom _before_ you inferred he or his players were either stupid or incompetent. DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in >> Actually, I haven't commented on the aptitude of his playgroup here, > > From Message-ID: <1179079277....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > > "Xzealot: >> In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession >> gambit works. > > Bram: > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." > > That is you, insulting the people Norm plays against, his playgroup. > *shrug* No, it's two people using two different meanings of "works". Norm (following Lasombra's example) was using "works" in the game-mechanics sense. To which Bram followed up with the "against rational opponents" sense. Bram's message didn't refer to Norm's group at all. He just noted that the combo would be unlikely to work against a table of rational players who understood the combo. (rest snipped, unread -- really how much post-mortem is needed on a flamewar? Move on, everybody. Please.)

On May 15, 3:40 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote innews:1179216011.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > On May 14, 8:10 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> *** emphasis mine. I'll only object to this characterization as > >> overly broad. Norm intentionally rachets up the flame war only _in > >> response_ to Bram's needing to comment on either Norm's (game play or > >> deckbuilding) incompetence, or that of his playgroups. > (snip) > > Actually, I haven't commented on the aptitude of his playgroup here, > > From Message-ID: <1179079277.185782.92...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > > "Xzealot: > > > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > > gambit works. > > Bram: > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." > > That is you, insulting the people Norm plays against, his playgroup. > *shrug* Since I have some time I'll reply to the big wad of text :) Like I clarified in the post onward to this exchange, and like LSJ clarified below: This is not an insult towards his playgroup. Whereas the combo technically works, ie. he gets burned in a bloodhunt, and then possesses his minion, competent players will not burn the illusionary minion. Since I, further in that text, again say the combo does not work, it's reasonable to assume, that I assume he will play against competent players. I do assume he does, and since the combo isn't *all* that easy to figure out, it's a compliment towards his playgroup if anything. > > nor do I think this would escalate. As per above, I assume his > > playgroup is competent enough to not burn his vampires, and thus his > > whole combo fails. > > Also, as per above, if Norm doesn't manage to fit anything sensible in > > his posts, I'm not responding to them. If he feels it's good for his > > selfesteem/ego/whatever to reply to my posts with nonsense, that's > > fine. > > Message-ID: <1179080353.3...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Quoting message ID's doesn't give me links. As noted before, I use google groups. > >> In fact, its not even so much about the card game; Bram doesn't like > >> Norm's particular habit of using Usenet to hash out unfinished and > >> rough deck ideas (I guess because, like you, Bram is using Google > >> Groups instead of The Real Usenet, which leaves him incapable of > >> filtering out Norm's posts), and tries to do what he can to curtail > >> Norm's activities through social pressures instead (which, of course, > >> have the exact oppositve effect). > > > I do not strictly have a problem with Norm's habit of using the Usenet > > to hash out unfinished and rough deck ideas, I have a problem with him > > not being able to take criticism on those deck ideas. > > In the abscence of comments about how stupid he or his opponents are, he > takes (constructive) criticism and suggestions just fine... > > Message-ID: <1178883271.856276.189...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <1178636239.647115.304...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <1178637157.848174.119...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> As per above. There's numerous examples of the opposite nonetheless. [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think im all that bad on here either. > >> A look at the exchange history between Norm and Bram should tell > >> you that > >> Norm is now just "skipping through the middle" of what inevitably > >> happens when Bram decides to comment on what he perceives as > >> incompetence on the part of Norm and/or his playgroup. But as far as > >> I can see, Norm's role is still only a reactionary one in these > >> exchanges. In the long run, you could look at it as saving you some > >> extraneous reading. But, to each his own... > > > Yes, if Norm consistently wins with decks like these, I would take > > that as a failing on part of his playgroup. I don't think, however, > > that's the case. > > Even Norm states that this is not the case. Hell, this is early research. > A high rate of failure is the norm (heh, a pun).... I think a lot of the early failure can easily be abated by giving some thought to his ideas before posting them. That he chooses not to do so is his prerogative, but if his idea is not going to work, his posting it here invites criticism. > > However, I do not think this inevitably happens. However, if Norm > > would able to take criticism better, I'm sure there wouldn't be a > > problem at all. > > Yeah, what with you two having a history now, its probably like LSJ says. > A "cooling off" period may be in order. I'd suggest if "problem free" is > really how you'd both prefer it, don't bother with replying to each other > at all until, say... June 15. Then, pick it up again and see where things > go. I have no intention of not responding to him. I'll continue to comment on decks posted here, regardless of the author. If he feels he has to make comments about my mother if I do so, then that's his prerogative. > > If he posts a deck, he's putting it up for criticism. That can both be > > constructive (you should add this card to make it better) and it can > > be negative (better to scrap this idea, since it would require massive > > changing to make decent) > > That latter is actually not so useful, within the context of experimental > deckwork, anyways. The objective here is not necessarily to build a deck > to win each game against the likes of Malk94, Triple A's, Nosferatu Hate > You! and Short Leash Bleed. The objective is to construct a reasonable > framework around which to generate interesting combinations of less-used > cards, first in search of potentially useful new combos. Second, possibly > as a training method for draft, where having fore-knowledge of unusual > combos and what is more powerful from the weaker end of the spectrum of > cards can be very helpful. I think it's a worthwhile exercise to, when building an experimental deck, keep in mind the decks that have already been tried and tested, and then compare your own deck to that. Even if it's unlikely you will build a deck that's as good or better in every aspect of the game as that, I think for a new idea to have merit, it has to have *some* kind of edge over a regular, well known archetype. This is usually the case if a deck is well-built. Also, if a deck has no intention to oust its prey, it shouldn't exist. > > and yes, sometimes I do post a sarcastic > > remark to a deck. Also, you can disagree with criticism without ad > > hominem attacks. Norm usually fails in that respect. > > "Xzealot: > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > gambit works. > > Bram: > No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." > > Please link me to an instance where norm went ad hom _before_ you inferred > he or his players were either stupid or incompetent. His followup post to this remark: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9c3e1d348e5a66e2 Never do I infer that he or his players were either stupid or incompetent in the post you reference. I explain this onwards in the thread, and again in the beginning of this post. > DaveZ > Atom Weaver- Cheers, Bram Vink

Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in news:1179239695.0...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On May 15, 3:40 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote >> innews:1179216011.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On May 14, 8:10 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> *** emphasis mine. I'll only object to this characterization as >> >> overly broad. Norm intentionally rachets up the flame war only >> >> _in response_ to Bram's needing to comment on either Norm's (game >> >> play or deckbuilding) incompetence, or that of his playgroups. >> (snip) >> > Actually, I haven't commented on the aptitude of his playgroup >> > here, >> >> From Message-ID: >> <1179079277.185782.92...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >> >> "Xzealot: >> >> > In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession >> > gambit works. >> >> Bram: >> No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." >> >> That is you, insulting the people Norm plays against, his playgroup. >> *shrug* > > Since I have some time I'll reply to the big wad of text :) > Like I clarified in the post onward to this exchange, and like LSJ > clarified below: > This is not an insult towards his playgroup. Even a casual read of how Norm constructed this reply; http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/9c3e1d348e5a66e2?dmode=source&hl=en would show you that he obviously understood it to be an insult. It happened in prior exchanges between you two, as well. Going on about how Norm is ad homming "for no reason" in light of you already knowing that he took this to be an insult in those previous exchanges, leaves one with the impression that you deliberately use the phrase to get just such a response from him. > Whereas the combo technically works, ie. he gets burned in a > bloodhunt, and then possesses his minion, competent players will not > burn the illusionary minion. Since I, further in that text, again say > the combo does not work, it's reasonable to assume, that I assume he > will play against competent players. > > I do assume he does, and since the combo isn't *all* that easy to > figure out, it's a compliment towards his playgroup if anything. > >> > nor do I think this would escalate. As per above, I assume his >> > playgroup is competent enough to not burn his vampires, and thus >> > his whole combo fails. >> > Also, as per above, if Norm doesn't manage to fit anything sensible >> > in his posts, I'm not responding to them. If he feels it's good for >> > his selfesteem/ego/whatever to reply to my posts with nonsense, >> > that's fine. >> >> Message-ID: <1179080353.3...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > > Quoting message ID's doesn't give me links. As noted before, I use > google groups. > Google Groups Advanced search window has a Search by message ID option at the bottom of the page. here is that message. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/9c5d26fbe74c3c59?hl=en >> >> In fact, its not even so much about the card game; Bram doesn't >> >> like Norm's particular habit of using Usenet to hash out >> >> unfinished and rough deck ideas (I guess because, like you, Bram >> >> is using Google Groups instead of The Real Usenet, which leaves >> >> him incapable of filtering out Norm's posts), and tries to do what >> >> he can to curtail Norm's activities through social pressures >> >> instead (which, of course, have the exact oppositve effect). >> >> > I do not strictly have a problem with Norm's habit of using the >> > Usenet to hash out unfinished and rough deck ideas, I have a >> > problem with him not being able to take criticism on those deck >> > ideas. >> >> In the abscence of comments about how stupid he or his opponents are, >> he takes (constructive) criticism and suggestions just fine... >> >> Message-ID: <1178883271.856276.189...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >> Message-ID: <1178636239.647115.304...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> >> Message-ID: <1178637157.848174.119...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> > > As per above. There's numerous examples of the opposite nonetheless. > Here you go; http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/fbe1c3842ec77d22?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/19972994097c3d14?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/cd6b64f7df9cb2a9?hl=en >> > However, I do not think this inevitably happens. However, if Norm >> > would able to take criticism better, I'm sure there wouldn't be a >> > problem at all. >> >> Yeah, what with you two having a history now, its probably like LSJ >> says. A "cooling off" period may be in order. I'd suggest if >> "problem free" is really how you'd both prefer it, don't bother with >> replying to each other at all until, say... June 15. Then, pick it >> up again and see where things go. > > I have no intention of not responding to him. I'll continue to comment > on decks posted here, regardless of the author. If he feels he has to > make comments about my mother if I do so, then that's his prerogative. > OK. If it isn't yet obvious, I'll make it now explicit that Norm perceives your repeated comment "it works, if your opponents are stupid" in response to a comment from him that the combo worked in his playgroup, to be you insulting his playgroup. I guess you can say you don't agree, and you can certainly choose to continue to use that particular idiom, but it'll also continue to elicit the same sort of response from Norm... >> > If he posts a deck, he's putting it up for criticism. That can both >> > be constructive (you should add this card to make it better) and it >> > can be negative (better to scrap this idea, since it would require >> > massive changing to make decent) >> >> That latter is actually not so useful, within the context of >> experimental deckwork, anyways. The objective here is not >> necessarily to build a deck to win each game against the likes of >> Malk94, Triple A's, Nosferatu Hate You! and Short Leash Bleed. The >> objective is to construct a reasonable framework around which to >> generate interesting combinations of less-used cards, first in search >> of potentially useful new combos. Second, possibly as a training >> method for draft, where having fore-knowledge of unusual combos and >> what is more powerful from the weaker end of the spectrum of cards >> can be very helpful. > > I think it's a worthwhile exercise to, when building an experimental > deck, keep in mind the decks that have already been tried and tested, > and then compare your own deck to that. Even if it's unlikely you will > build a deck that's as good or better in every aspect of the game as > that, I think for a new idea to have merit, it has to have *some* kind > of edge over a regular, well known archetype. This is usually the case > if a deck is well-built. Also, if a deck has no intention to oust its > prey, it shouldn't exist. > True or false (I lean towards disagreeing, but only because I've found value in Norm's method) this all addresses point the First, since it assumes using the resulting deck in a competitive constructed environment. I'd be interested to hear your comment about the value of experimental deckbuilding/combo discovery wrt draft, if you've ever considered it. >> > and yes, sometimes I do post a sarcastic >> > remark to a deck. Also, you can disagree with criticism without ad >> > hominem attacks. Norm usually fails in that respect. >> >> "Xzealot: >> In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession >> gambit works. >> >> Bram: >> No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." >> >> Please link me to an instance where norm went ad hom _before_ you >> inferred he or his players were either stupid or incompetent. > > His followup post to this remark: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9c3e1d > 348e5a66e2 > > Never do I infer that he or his players were either stupid or > incompetent in the post you reference. I explain this onwards in the > thread, and again in the beginning of this post. > I'm gonna try one last time to make you see how it can easily be perceived as an insult. Generally structured, Assertion: The combo works. I've made it work in my playgroup. Reply: The combo only works if you play against stupid people. Conclusion: Replier is equating "those against whom the combo works" ie "the playgroup" with "stupid people", therefore, it is an insult. I cannot make it any clearer than that, and so I'll stop trying now. I think even if you disagree, you now understand that that is how Norm reads it. You can choose to continue with using this idiom, but from now on, you are 100% aware that Norm interprets it in the above fashion. I've more than said my peace. Done now. Regards DaveZ

atomweaver wrote: > Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in >> Like I clarified in the post onward to this exchange, and like LSJ >> clarified below: >> This is not an insult towards his playgroup. > > Even a casual read of how Norm constructed this reply; > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- > cards.jyhad/msg/9c3e1d348e5a66e2?dmode=source&hl=en > > would show you that he obviously understood it to be an insult. It The fact that he took it the wrong way doesn't make it an insult.

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] How is an insult defined? A fictional example: A person from a completely different culture could actually like it if you call his mom a whore, because whores have a high social stand in that culture. So what is usually considered an insult in our culture is actually a praise in other I don´t think it is only Norm taking things "wrong". It is a combination of two behaviours. First Bram is posting things that are *designed* to make Norm freak out and Norm fails to ignore them even if he should know from former threads that replying is to little avail. One of them (or better both) should just go ahead and brake the circle. On the other hand it could be also an instance of sick hate-love. Who knows. Johannes

On May 14, 4:36 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Bram has gone to great lengths to misrepresent his motives and, > generally, waste my time. I like to show him how much I appreciate > his behavior. > By replying to the newsgroup, you aren't showing *him*. You're showing *everyone*. If you want to show him your appreciation, do it via email. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Johannes Walch wrote: > LSJ schrieb: >> atomweaver wrote: >>> Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in >>>> Like I clarified in the post onward to this exchange, and like LSJ >>>> clarified below: >>>> This is not an insult towards his playgroup. >>> >>> Even a casual read of how Norm constructed this reply; >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- >>> cards.jyhad/msg/9c3e1d348e5a66e2?dmode=source&hl=en >>> >>> would show you that he obviously understood it to be an insult. It >> >> The fact that he took it the wrong way doesn't make it an insult. > > How is an insult defined? I'm insulted that you would ask. :-) > > A fictional example: > A person from a completely different culture could actually like it if > you call his mom a whore, because whores have a high social stand in > that culture. > > So what is usually considered an insult in our culture is actually a > praise in other > > I don´t think it is only Norm taking things "wrong". It is a combination > of two behaviours. First Bram is posting things that are *designed* to > make Norm freak out and Norm fails to ignore them even if he should know > from former threads that replying is to little avail. > > One of them (or better both) should just go ahead and brake the circle. > On the other hand it could be also an instance of sick hate-love. Who > knows. Perhaps. But in this case, the reaction "That's an insult" was clearly not warranted.

On May 15, 12:21 pm, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It's interesting that you would say that, As you could have done the same with your replay above. Why didn't you? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:Cll2i.28969$Um6.24405 @newssvr12.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps, perhaps not. The fact that Bram knew upon his third use of the idiom that Norm would again take it as an insult (he did the first two times) indicates that Bram may now be using it to deliberately elicit an inflammatory response. In light of that, claiming to be the 'innocent' victim of an 'unsolicited' ad hom is fairly absurd. His participation is complicit. DZ AW

XZealot a écrit : > On May 14, 12:41 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On 14 mei, 18:55, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >>Seriously, I really feel bad when threads on a forum about something I >>like turn into sad little flame-wars. Especially when they feature >>insults like the ones you use. > > > If you are feint of heart or sensitive then there are a few > personality combonations here that you should avoid such as XZealot > and Bram Vink, Derek Ray and Ector, Bluedevil and Reyda, and on, and > on, and on.... hey come one now Norman, what am *i* doing in this post ? i became a polite and respectful boy with the passing of time. I can swear it :)

[ quoted text not captured ] I dragged you into this because I'm going to the Texas Qualifier this weekend, so I have to practice with my lasso. :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr [ quoted text not captured ]

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> I don't know when end of the gene pool that you got kicked out of, >> but I do know that the combo can work. See above about you doing >> something your good at, like barnyard shenanigans. > > and: > >> It's funny that you would mention schools since your mother's >> teaching a hands on sex education class. > > Well then. Here's the comment. > > Grow up. I mean, Jesus, man. For what it's worth, I have never seen Norm initiate this so-called 'immature' behavior, he only responds that way to people trolling his posts. That may be the wrong thing to do, I will grant you, but I have never seen him initiate any behavior of this kind, which may lead to you drawing certain conclusions about those childish enough to respond only to troll Norm, as I have. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. > Please stop spoiling it for me. Interesting how you have nothing like this to say to Bram, the cause of all the spoiling going on around here. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 mei, 18:00, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] No, I did not. Because Norm doesn't understand something, does not mean I meant that as inflammatory. I haven't seen Norm implying that his combo has successfully worked in practice. I believe he means strictly that his combo works in theory, if other people burn his vampire in a bloodhunt. I assume other people will not burn his vampire, which is their choice. If they choose to burn his vampire, knowing it will be combo'd back, for no reason, then they better have a good motivation. So basically what I'm saying is his combo is dependent on the goodwill of other players. If those players make his combo work 9 times, they most likely suck, yes. I assume they will understand the combo, and choose not to burn his vampires, breaking his combo - making it not work. > > Whereas the combo technically works, ie. he gets burned in a > > bloodhunt, and then possesses his minion, competent players will not > > burn the illusionary minion. Since I, further in that text, again say > > the combo does not work, it's reasonable to assume, that I assume he > > will play against competent players. > > > I do assume he does, and since the combo isn't *all* that easy to > > figure out, it's a compliment towards his playgroup if anything. > > >> > nor do I think this would escalate. As per above, I assume his > >> > playgroup is competent enough to not burn his vampires, and thus > >> > his whole combo fails. > >> > Also, as per above, if Norm doesn't manage to fit anything sensible > >> > in his posts, I'm not responding to them. If he feels it's good for > >> > his selfesteem/ego/whatever to reply to my posts with nonsense, > >> > that's fine. > > >> Message-ID: <1179080353.356468.134...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > > > Quoting message ID's doesn't give me links. As noted before, I use > > google groups. > > Google Groups Advanced search window has a Search by message ID option at > the bottom of the page. > here is that message.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9c5d26fbe74c3c59?hl=en Your point? I respond to his not understanding.I don't think there's anything wrong with the message you linked. That is constructive deck advice, and not an insult in any way. > >> >> In fact, its not even so much about the card game; Bram doesn't > >> >> like Norm's particular habit of using Usenet to hash out > >> >> unfinished and rough deck ideas (I guess because, like you, Bram > >> >> is using Google Groups instead of The Real Usenet, which leaves > >> >> him incapable of filtering out Norm's posts), and tries to do what > >> >> he can to curtail Norm's activities through social pressures > >> >> instead (which, of course, have the exact oppositve effect). > > >> > I do not strictly have a problem with Norm's habit of using the > >> > Usenet to hash out unfinished and rough deck ideas, I have a > >> > problem with him not being able to take criticism on those deck > >> > ideas. > > >> In the abscence of comments about how stupid he or his opponents are, > >> he takes (constructive) criticism and suggestions just fine... > > >> Message-ID: <1178883271.856276.189...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > >> Message-ID: <1178636239.647115.304...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> > >> Message-ID: <1178637157.848174.119...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> > > > As per above. There's numerous examples of the opposite nonetheless. > > Here you go; > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/fbe1c3842ec77d22?hl=en > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/19972994097c3d14?hl=en > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cd6b64f7df9cb2a9?hl=en None of those are truly critical of his deck designing. Add this card, remove that card, this combo sadly doesn't work. None of those aside the last are along the lines of: your deck is not well thought out. In the last cast that's obvious and irrefutable. > >> > However, I do not think this inevitably happens. However, if Norm > >> > would able to take criticism better, I'm sure there wouldn't be a > >> > problem at all. > > >> Yeah, what with you two having a history now, its probably like LSJ > >> says. A "cooling off" period may be in order. I'd suggest if > >> "problem free" is really how you'd both prefer it, don't bother with > >> replying to each other at all until, say... June 15. Then, pick it > >> up again and see where things go. > > > I have no intention of not responding to him. I'll continue to comment > > on decks posted here, regardless of the author. If he feels he has to > > make comments about my mother if I do so, then that's his prerogative. > > OK. If it isn't yet obvious, I'll make it now explicit that Norm > perceives your repeated comment "it works, if your opponents are stupid" > in response to a comment from him that the combo worked in his playgroup, > to be you insulting his playgroup. I guess you can say you don't agree, > and you can certainly choose to continue to use that particular idiom, > but it'll also continue to elicit the same sort of response from Norm... I don't agree. Since that's not what it was in response to. It was in response to his statement that theoretically the combo works. What he (and you, I guess) do not grasp that because it is entirely dependent on other players deciding wether the combo works, the reliable working of the combo assumes stupid players, the opposite, 'the combo not working unless you have stupid players' is also true, without insult to any specific player. I do not think Norm was referring to a practical example of the combo working. If so, and it did work reliably, then I fully agree that what I said was that the players he played against were not playing rationally, or weren't able to reason out how to break his combo. (being stupid) [ quoted text not captured ] I assume a competetive constructed environment for constructed decks. I think almost all combo's that are reasoned out, are easily done so. Although there's a lot of potential depth to the game, most of the working, effective combos encompass no more than 2 cards interacting. I think combo discovery per se isn't laudable in any way. It's laudable if you make a combo do something effective in a way you personally haven't done before. That's challenging. That's what you need creativity for. Just finding two cards that interact in a funny way could be done by any old monkey. It's also pretty easy to figure out card interactions when you encounter cards in draft. Draft is a whole different ballgame, for which common sense and understanding game mechanics, knowing which game mechanics are more valuable with limited cardselection and so on are infinitely more valuable than knowing which cards can do an outlandish uncommon combo with another, possibly. Draft is about opportunity and basic combos. > >> > and yes, sometimes I do post a sarcastic > >> > remark to a deck. Also, you can disagree with criticism without ad > >> > hominem attacks. Norm usually fails in that respect. > > >> "Xzealot: > >> In this case the Lasombra was incorrect, the illusion/possession > >> gambit works. > > >> Bram: > >> No it doesn't, unless you play against stupid players." > > >> Please link me to an instance where norm went ad hom _before_ you > >> inferred he or his players were either stupid or incompetent. > > > His followup post to this remark: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9c3e1d348e5a66e2 > > > Never do I infer that he or his players were either stupid or > > incompetent in the post you reference. I explain this onwards in the > > thread, and again in the beginning of this post. > > I'm gonna try one last time to make you see how it can easily be > perceived as an insult. Generally structured, > > Assertion: > The combo works. I've made it work in my playgroup. This is not what Norm says. Norm, imo, refers to a theoretical working of the combo. If it is what he means, then the comment I give is technically an insult. However, since, with the deck/crypt that was in question it is wholly dependent on the people he plays against wether his combo works or not, I don't think it's a false one. > Reply: > The combo only works if you play against stupid people. > > Conclusion: > Replier is equating "those against whom the combo works" ie "the > playgroup" with "stupid people", therefore, it is an insult. I cannot > make it any clearer than that, and so I'll stop trying now. You assume that he is referring to a practical example. I assume he is not. > I think even if you disagree, you now understand that that is how Norm > reads it. You can choose to continue with using this idiom, but from now > on, you are 100% aware that Norm interprets it in the above fashion. If he does, he's not paying attention. > I've more than said my peace. Done now. > > Regards > DaveZ- Cheers, Bram

On 15 mei, 22:31, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I suggest you re-read posts 10-15 of this very thread. I dont think there's anyone around you're drawing conclusions about, Kev. Suit yourself nonetheless. Cheers, Bram

Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote: > I suggest you re-read posts 10-15 of this very thread. I dont think > there's anyone around you're drawing conclusions about, Kev. > Suit yourself nonetheless. FWIW, seems like DZ agrees with me, almost exactly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote: >> I suggest you re-read posts 10-15 of this very thread. I dont think >> there's anyone around you're drawing conclusions about, Kev. >> Suit yourself nonetheless. > > FWIW, seems like DZ agrees with me, almost exactly. FWIW, seems like I agree with Bram and Teeka. Not that this is a popularity contest.

On May 16, 12:32 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Me too. :) Norm started it with: "So nice of you to change your tune, you fucking imbecile. The combination works which is not what the Lasombra said. Why don't you go back to something you excel at, like molesting farm animals. " Even if Norm thought Bram was insulting his playgroup he was the one who took it to a level some of us would rather he didn't. Chris.

On 15 mei, 22:33, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > What makes me happy is reading about a game I like. > > Please stop spoiling it for me. > > Interesting how you have nothing like this to say to Bram, the cause of > all the spoiling going on around here. > I don't see why someone who gets a juvinile response, would be responsible for the response he gets. It's still the insulter's choice to use the words he uses. Norm could have said something along the lines of: "What do you mean, my playgroup aren't idiots! Why are you implying that?". To which Bram could say "Oh, but I wasn't saying your playgroup are idiots. Just saying they'll see the combo go off once and then know better. But if they would fall into the the same trap twice, then they're not playing very well." ** Instead, Norm starts using random insults about Bram and people around Bram. **which he has explained in this thread, but only after actually being asked. I can fully understand that if someone insults him, he feels no need to explain himself and will just reply to the insult. Even though still, sometimes Bram does first try to explain himself first, while Norm is already on the chariot of flame. If Norm, or anyone, starts using insults and personal remarks, THAT pisses me off and ruins my fun. I have no problem with people getting into arguments about the game, and I don't mind a little sarcasm. But I draw the line when the arguments leave the actual topic and turn into an insult-competition. I am not feint of heart as someone said, I just think behaving in a civilized manner is not too hard, even though a lot of people in the world apparently feel like they don't need to act civilized anymore when they're behind their keyboard. No one around to punch you in the face, so let's go ahead and let loose. I don't mind if Norm and Bram dislike each other. I don't mind if Bram thinks all of Norm's decks are bad. I don't mind if Norm thinks Bram is always on the negative and fails to see what Norm's trying to do by posting an idea. I DO mind to sit in a cinema, trying to watch a movie and enjoy myself, while two kids next to me are fighting and screaming. Get it? Bottom line: I don't care who you are, no flaming AT ALL, please. I was so happy to finally find a forum that was about *what it's about*. There's already way too many people out there that go online daily just to piss other people off... -Teeka, VTES player.

On May 15, 1:55 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On May 15, 12:21 pm, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On May 14, 4:36 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > Bram has gone to great lengths to misrepresent his motives and, > > > generally, waste my time. I like to show him how much I appreciate > > > his behavior. > > > By replying to the newsgroup, you aren't showing *him*. You're showing > > *everyone*. If you want to show him your appreciation, do it via > > email. > > It's interesting that you would say that, As you could have done the > same with your replay above. Why didn't you? Everyone could use the occasional reminder that they can reply to a person rather than the newsgroup. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:iZ12i.28846$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > Which newsgroup would you rather have? > > More noise -> lower signal-to-noise. > > Now, what if others felt similarly and left for that reason? > > Not only has the signal-to-noise dropped, but that drop then causes a drop in signal (leading to a further decrease in > signal-to-noise). > > See rec.games.board 's fate. What was rec.game.board's fate? I use to love that group, many years ago while I still had time to play boardgames. Did it die some sort of horrible (film-at-11) death? Fred (apologies for the slightly OT diversion but it shouldn't take long to satisfy my curiosity about it)

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:iZ12i.28846$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... >> Which newsgroup would you rather have? >> >> More noise -> lower signal-to-noise. >> >> Now, what if others felt similarly and left for that reason? >> >> Not only has the signal-to-noise dropped, but that drop then causes a drop in signal (leading to a further decrease in >> signal-to-noise). >> >> See rec.games.board 's fate. > > What was rec.game.board's fate? I use to love that group, many years ago > while I still had time to play boardgames. Did it die some sort of > horrible (film-at-11) death? No big flame-out, no (at least, not that I saw). It just had a few recurring flame-war partners and the noise slowly grew (decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio), eventually driving people away (which became more of an option with the rise of boardgamegeek.com). As people went away, the s2n ratio dropped still lower. And so more people went away. I haven't visited in quite a while. A quick check just now shows a smattering of posts (most seeming to be reviews from Tom Vasel and Greg J. Schloesser), so perhaps it finally did go nova and now you can see the spinning remnants (but at least it's high s2n, even if the s is just a mirror fragment of BGG).