Actually my personal choices are Squadren No Hand Rush and Common Enemy. :p Though I've played an original equipment based Brave and the Bold and DIG in PCQs before. I'd be willing to play either of them in a big event probably. Well, not B&TB right now, the meta is terrible for it.

I'll play any deck I can get my hands on basically. My playgroup uses proxies so... No limits. And I play stuff like Arkham all most as much as SQS. When I pay money to play though I don't just ignore other people's testing is all.

-Mike

Hah! I know what is really bringing me happiness!

*rereads the Chuck Norris thread over yonder*

Chuck Norris is by no means British.
You are luck that he did not just roundhouse-kick your knickers right off of you bum...

Or performing a triple-summersault and sticking his cowboy boot up your arse, all while drinking tea and eating crumpets! tallyho! :eek:

I don't know how to answer your question "should we be gaming?"

I started playing this game for fun.

Eventually, it got to the point where being competitive was more fun than being a hobby league scrub.

Now, I am a competitive scrub.

Does this mean I should stop gaming because 1) it's not like my other friends do it and 2) I'm not winning any large amounts of cash from it?

I don't know if it does or not.

So, for the time, I'm trying to take a hiatus of sorts before PC Atlanta, and hopefully when that rolls around I'll feel better about it and be ready to play again.

With me, this game fills a big empty gaping hole in my head. That space is full of oxygen, therefore it goes from bonfire to bonfire. It always has. Whether collecting miniature liquor bottles in junior high, breeding japanese goldfish in high school, or becoming an artist in mind and action in college, I have a burning need to obsess on something. Since becoming an artist, these obsessions have taken the form of a series of creative projects that fulfill me as an entertaining and productive human being, as they consume me. Luckily, I have a very stable job and family life to provide a fireplace. Vs. System is hot in my life, it has been for two full years, and it shows no signs of dying down. That makes me really happy.

Who judges what the "universal goods" are? Who has that right? If one person claims it's one thing, doesn't ANYONE else have the equal right to refute it for whatever they reason they want?

For example:

Let's just say that the total balance of happiness in the world is negative. And let's say that, due to the dually competitive and dependant nature of humanity, for any action we take, the overall happiness goes down (this theory in and of itself I don't think is too far off). If this is the case, wouldn't the "universal good" be to extinguish all human life as we know it? Wouldn't raising the level of happiness from negative to zero be a "universal good"?

I view eradicating all life as evil. You probably do too. But I bet someone out there doesn't. And how do we know that he's not right?


(P.S. Those of you who read my journal have heard me brought up this case before. Hey, I thought of it, and I like it, so shut up.)

Oh, and, sorry about the Hedonism comments. It is actually one of the things I've mentioned that I know the absolute least about. Most of my knowledge of it is based on the description we were given of Hedonism back in Gifted, and the Hedonism Bot from Futurama, which both aligned perfectly.

its really hard to get bored of a sport you enjoy playing. i dont know if you've ever actually played on a real HS team or whatever but every1 i know that has played including me has yet to get bored. i mean.. nobody can effectively copy you in a sport, you are completely unique and theres sooo many variables and you can say it takes true "skill".

You can get bored of a card game especially 1 like vs because every game is supposed to be like exactly the same excluding what plots are played when. You build your deck to make sure you can do whatever on turn whatever. There is no true "skill" in ccgs either. There are better players but there honestly isnt any "outplaying' or skill. Those words are so overused :(. If 1 player becomes a michael jordan all the other players can just copy him and become michael jordans too :/. I think card games are reallllly being taken out of context while i play for money i think they are honestly just meant to be for fun since being competitive in a card game is just so unnatural compared to a real sport.

not to mention in a card game the game stays the same for 3-4 months cus theres nothing new added to the game, not the same in sports.

ya so theres my long rant for like 1/8th of your post.

and i honestly think card games or at least vs just isnt for some people. i wonder myself why i play card games when i hate unoriginal people and there are honestly alot of other things i could be doing with my life,so many times i have to decline going out with friends or the females or to parties because im going to try to win money somewhere out of state/city and its honestly based on more luck than it should be.

BUT I STILL pLAY THIS DAMN GAME.

but if high school sports awarded as much money(if any FROWN) as card games chances are i wouldnt even touch something based on as much luck as card games are and break out the true skill.

I'm not sure where Mr. Fike was going with the genetics comment, but genetics are one way of drawing truths of human nature. For example, the Nazis believed that Aryans and Blacks/Jews/Serbs etc were genetically different, which genetic studies have proven wrong. The "adjusting the filters" comment is a good one though. But anyway...

Profparm is correct in stating that no one has the right to define happiness. This is why happiness is not different from person to person, because it's beyond the definition of humans. It's a concept above us, like good and evil, that we can scientifically discover, but not subjectively define.

So how do we figure it out? Like we figure everything out - deductive reasoning. We deduct truths, then expand on those truths with inductive reasoning.

The way we determine whether eradicating all human life is good or not is fairly simple.

First, We establish a definition of good, or of value. Life is the most basic good/value. Only a living being can argue that life is not valuable. This is self-evidently contradictory, and therefore irrational. (As DesCarte said - "I think, therefore I am") We can turn this into a large metaphysical discussion, but that would only serve to confirm this truth.

Second, we determine who best upholds that good. Obviously the person advocating destruction of life fails this test. This is why the various people who want to "blow up the world" are villains.

We find the principle (2+2=4) then apply it to situations (does 2+3=4?) to find answers to questions.

making love happiness > vs system happiness > video game happiness > television happiness

well stu I agree with that having something to obsess about is nice. It is nice to take a side and stand for it.

Like in sports. I live in kansas like Profparm so i like to hear Ku does well

I like to hear that profparm does well at the versus events he goes to. I enjoy reading his articles about versus and i admire the way that he refuses to net deck. He even does well at pcq's with decks that are not teir 1.

Now someone can interpret to me my intentions or tell someone else the truth of my intentions. however, There are people who wish other people harm for good intentions and cruel intentions. It is within us to decide how we veiw the reality around us.

I have looked at people with the eyes of cruel intentions. (especially when your playing against Profparm and he doesn't miss his 4 drop doom). It sucks to lose but the overall intentions are good because Profparm and the many others I play down in kansas make me a better player and a better person.

So why do I game? why do people watch sports? is it an obssesion? Why not?

Do you have to know the truth to play versus? Do you have to know the truth to fall in love?

if we did know would we play?

Hot damn! It's too early in the morning for such great stuff. Thanks for the breakfast.

I don't know if it fits into Adam Science's provable experiment, but I think you just touched on a really profound trip.

True happiness does not need to be explained, it just is.

As in "Mean People breed Little Mean People?" You're right. We should start forced sterilization immediately.

tigol: Actually, I think there's a lot of skill in this game, like in sports. Unlike in sports, where the luck factor is mostly stuff like "wind direction", the luck factor in card games is much, much higher. However, if you honestly think that everyone has an equal chance in VS, then you haven't looked at the top 8's of 10ks and PCs. You'll notice that they do not repeatedly change, as a perfectly random system would suggest. In fact, the odds of so many people repeating their high rankings would be nigh-impossible if they did not have some advantage at the game, and, barring luck favoring Dave Spears (which I know it does, but meh), I'm going to say that they have "skills".


Orumceck: I don't think Logic is quite as simple as you state. Along the same lines, we could argue that quality of life is a greater value than life itself. (If you believe your argument, you are never, ever for taking a human life, which, in and of itself, can be proven to be morally wrong. If you REALLY need me to, I can give some examples.)

Without Quality of Life, life has no reason, no purpose, that we know of. If life isn't good, why should it exist at all? Therefore, we must put Quality of Life above Life itself. The only people who would argue with this are living beings whose life has a quality, which is self-contradictory and irrational.

If EVERYONE'S life is equally bad, and the only way to make life at least neutral, if not bad, is to blow up the world, then blowing up the world is morally justified, by placing Quality of Life as the highest value.

This is using a similar line of logic to the one you're using. Logic is biased, too, based on the person using the logic and the point they want to prove. You can use enough logic and enough facts (or assumptions, in our case) to justify about any action or prove any point, no matter how actually wrong said point is.


Savage: Don't worry, folks, this guy has like double my PC points and has been to infinitely more PCs than me. He's just flattering me so I might go easy on him in our next game. :laugh:

And, while we don't have to know the truth about whether or not VS is good for us to play it, do we need to know the truth to have fun debating what the truth itself is? I bet you could find an argument saying that this argument, in and of itself, is wrong because it's not good for us, or it doesn't hold to some value, or yadda yadda yadda. And I'll still indulge myself in a little fun debating with my vsrealms buddies whenever I can.


Stu: True happiness may not NEED to be explained, but it certainly helps in finding it.


P.S. Wait, why the Hell is Joe (Savage) Big Spooky's number 1 fan? Why aren't you my barn, man? Jim, Kevin, Jason, Izzy, and the entire Gatekeeper crowd isn't a big enough of a roster, I need someone with PC presence on my barn list!

(If Jim, Kevin, Jason, Izzy, or the entire Gatekeeper crowd ends up reading this, I, uh, wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the OTHER Jim, Kevin, Jason, Izzy, or entire Gatekeeper crowd.)

Good point. Something that over-thinkers like us should keep in check, or else we will end up with our face in a computer screen analyzing happiness while we should be out making love to real life... but a good point nonetheless.