The Metagame of System Wars

Nice post I actually read it all. I know and understand everything you wrote about, but wouldn't SW be boring without the fakeboys and fanboys posts that make absolutely no sense? It's like if you're asking to make System Wars GGD 2 board.Mardil

There will also always be people who are fans of a system for reasons other than brand name - and these are the people who make much more interesting posters. Someone with an argument for why the Wii offers a compelling new gaming experience for them is going to attract more fresh debate than a Nintendo fanboy posting "Reggie was right, Wii pwns PS3".

The "almighty brand name" is a one trick pony. We'll see it after each E3 announcement, dozens of threads about how "________ is dominating _________" - I'm sure we'll see "halo killer" thrown on every non-Halo FPS shown, games used to "own" games that aren't in the same genre, and all manner of apples to hand grenades comparisons. They're not threads that invite debate, they're threads created with the intention of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree, you're an idiot".

Oh clap! I just realized I'm both a Fallout Fanboi AND Fakeboi111 Oh noz! Poor BethSoft boards :evil:

Meh, whacha gonna do?

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]I like how you made the term "fanboy" seem so negative. Back in the 80's fanboys were a good thing. Ford fanboy, Chevy fanboy, Levis fanboy, Converse fanboy, you were proud to be called a fanboy back then. Now, It's like you're a digusting indiviual for strongly supporting a brand. I guess times are changing...IbukiNinja

Blindly you say? You mean not seeing what the other competition has or not wanting what the other competition has?

You don't know what a fanboy really is then. I guess it took up a new meaning, so I wouldn't blame you for not knowing. My brother, dad, and grandfather are all Ford fanboys. Do they complain about Ford? all the freaking time. Do they like what chevy has beocme? Yes,My dadwas even thinking about getting one until my Brother talked him out of it. You putting irrational judgement with the word "fanboy". As I said before, the meaning has totally change.

IbukiNinja, by the wording of your post, you speak with a great deal of presumption that you carry the singular definition of fanboy, and can say to someone "you don't know what you're talking about". What is to say your idea of fanboy is anymore valid than Jandurin's or anybody else's?

Can it be said there is ONE universal definition? Maybe not. And yes, meanings (as with languages themselves) do sometimes evolve over time. It's been discussed on these boards before and I go with this precept (which subrosian outlined, and most others have agreed with) - if you have preferences for a particular platform, you're a fan, if you are incapable of giving recognition to the merits of the competition and make it a regualr practice to bash irrationally, you're a fanboy.

And Subrosian, you have made a MASTERPIECE of a Topic here. I can't commend this enough :) :) I used to be an avid M:TG player myself, and yeah while I did play the common power decks, I can also proudly say I also played for fun. And was willing to try out a myriad of deck themes --- Treefolk decks, Wyrm decks, Spider decks, Skeleton decks, decks around Banding creatures, and my most innovative deck, one that was 80 cards (yes, 20 above the common deck size), didn't deal any damage to my opponent, and despite those 2 unsual factors, had a VERY high success rate. 8)

IbukiNinja, by the wording of your post, you speak with a great deal of presumption that you carry the singular definition of fanboy, and can say to someone "you don't know what you're talking about". What is to say your idea of fanboy is anymore valid than Jandurin's or anybody else's?

Can it be said there is ONE universal definition? Maybe not. And yes, meanings (as with languages themselves) do sometimes evolve over time. It's been discussed on these boards before and I go with this precept (which subrosian outlined, and most others have agreed with) - if you have preferences for a particular platform, you're a fan, if you are incapable of giving recognition to the merits of the competition and make it a regualr practice to bash irrationally, you're a fanboy.

And Subrosian, you have made a MASTERPIECE of a Topic here. I can't commend this enough :) :) I used to be an avid M:TG player myself, and yeah while I did play the common power decks, I can also proudly say I also played for fun. And was willing to try out a myriad of deck themes --- Treefolk decks, Wyrm decks, Spider decks, Skeleton decks, decks around Banding creatures, and my most innovative deck, one that was 80 cards (yes, 20 above the common deck size), didn't deal any damage to my opponent, and despite those 2 unsual factors, had a VERY high success rate. 8)

AdobeArtist

I was always a fan of decking people, or using Lhurgoyf / Fling decks. There's something subtle about strapping a creature large enough to end the match to a catapult and yelling "fire!". Magic tournaments suffer from the copy-paste syndrome (well it used to be called "dot deck" but I'm sure it's called something else now) - too many players show up to tournaments with a deck they read about on the internet, and it really is just the process of watching players make themselves miserable clumsily using someone else's strategy ... it's really silly, especially since they paid $25 to be there.

Anyway, I'm glad to see a lot of other gamespotters have played D&D or M:tG, along with 40k and some time in the arcades, they reallydoform "the other gaming culture" that continues (along with film and novels) to influence gaming.

IbukiNinja, by the wording of your post, you speak with a great deal of presumption that you carry the singular definition of fanboy, and can say to someone "you don't know what you're talking about". What is to say your idea of fanboy is anymore valid than Jandurin's or anybody else's?

Can it be said there is ONE universal definition? Maybe not. And yes, meanings (as with languages themselves) do sometimes evolve over time. It's been discussed on these boards before and I go with this precept (which subrosian outlined, and most others have agreed with) - if you have preferences for a particular platform, you're a fan, if you are incapable of giving recognition to the merits of the competition and make it a regualr practice to bash irrationally, you're a fanboy.

And Subrosian, you have made a MASTERPIECE of a Topic here. I can't commend this enough :) :) I used to be an avid M:TG player myself, and yeah while I did play the common power decks, I can also proudly say I also played for fun. And was willing to try out a myriad of deck themes --- Treefolk decks, Wyrm decks, Spider decks, Skeleton decks, decks around Banding creatures, and my most innovative deck, one that was 80 cards (yes, 20 above the common deck size), didn't deal any damage to my opponent, and despite those 2 unsual factors, had a VERY high success rate. 8)

AdobeArtist

Well, don't assume I hold the true meaning of the word 'fanboy". I'm just saying back in my day fanboys was viewed in a positive light. Now, it's looked down upon, thus saying times has change. I was just telling subrosian how it was back in the 80's. How you assume I have this "I know all" is a reflection of yourself. Remember you create the assumption, therefore it is yours.

Remember you create the assumption, therefore it is yours.IbukiNinja

[QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]Remember you create the assumption, therefore it is yours.Jandurin

Nope. Will not take it. If my wording was confusing he could've ask me what I mean, and not assume. Do you not agree?

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]Remember you create the assumption, therefore it is yours.IbukiNinja

Nope. Will not take it. If my wording was confusing he could've ask me what I mean, and not assume. Do you not agree?

I think I rambled a bit.

[QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]Remember you create the assumption, therefore it is yours.Jandurin

Nope. Will not take it. If my wording was confusing he could've ask me what I mean, and not assume. Do you not agree?

I think I rambled a bit.

Bold text. Did you assume I have that problem?

Well, they were your words, and you didn't accept his understanding of them.

Are you not responsible for your words?

Long winded by nice thread.

Albeit I probe and trap people a lot. I often refer to such tactics differently.

Baiting - when I lead a conversation knowing full well the expected party's responses. I pick the next move, and let them play with the line. Really a dishonest debating method, but often feels like chess. Sometimes works well with the "play it stupid card".

Rhetorical baiting - I do this to posters I've grown tired of. I ask questions not only knowing the answers, but knowing they won't answer them. Often repeating questions, and pointing out all previously missed questions are great ways to send the message home.

Battle of Tangents - If the other person seems to lack focus, a great way to slowly work away at them is to break into tangent debates. The key is to come out on top in these, but then manage to point out that they're pointless to the original topic (which then pulls it back).

Long winded by nice thread.

Albeit I probe and trap people a lot. I often refer to such tactics differently.

Baiting - when I lead a conversation knowing full well the expected party's responses. I pick the next move, and let them play with the line. Really a dishonest debating method, but often feels like chess. Sometimes works well with the "play it stupid card".

Rhetorical baiting - I do this to posters I've grown tired of. I ask questions not only knowing the answers, but knowing they won't answer them. Often repeating questions, and pointing out all previously missed questions are great ways to send the message home.

Battle of Tangents - If the other person seems to lack focus, a great way to slowly work away at them is to break into tangent debates. The key is to come out on top in these, but then manage to point out that they're pointless to the original topic (which then pulls it back).

-RPGamer-

In doing those things you are proving that you cannot win the argument on honest grounds. Tricks aren't clever when the process of debate is the entire purpose. If you have to resort to tangential or baited arguments to win, you lost.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Long winded by nice thread.

Albeit I probe and trap people a lot. I often refer to such tactics differently.

Baiting - when I lead a conversation knowing full well the expected party's responses. I pick the next move, and let them play with the line. Really a dishonest debating method, but often feels like chess. Sometimes works well with the "play it stupid card".

Rhetorical baiting - I do this to posters I've grown tired of. I ask questions not only knowing the answers, but knowing they won't answer them. Often repeating questions, and pointing out all previously missed questions are great ways to send the message home.

Battle of Tangents - If the other person seems to lack focus, a great way to slowly work away at them is to break into tangent debates. The key is to come out on top in these, but then manage to point out that they're pointless to the original topic (which then pulls it back).

whoisryanmack

In doing those things you are proving that you cannot win the argument on honest grounds. Tricks aren't clever when the process of debate is the entire purpose. If you have to resort to tangential or baited arguments to win, you lost.

Few people are willing to take the honest grounds here, the people I think will go that route I take. And you don't lose by using these tactics, that's an overly eutopian view imho. The fact that others openly allow me to use these on them is part of the fun I have here.

If I respect the user I'll enter the debate on a more neutral basis, otherwise it's free game to have fun with. Albeit there have been instances where I felt the person slowly earned respect through the debate, and I openly admit and switch tones. I've also been had by these said tactics, and when all was said and done they were some of my best debates here despite being had.

God, that crap was so long. Why is this a sticky when no one cares and we already know this stuff? God!TheGrossPervert

And knocks the guy off the bike with a steak.

Your favorite animal is a Liger.

Who are you?

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Long winded by nice thread.

Albeit I probe and trap people a lot. I often refer to such tactics differently.

Baiting - when I lead a conversation knowing full well the expected party's responses. I pick the next move, and let them play with the line. Really a dishonest debating method, but often feels like chess. Sometimes works well with the "play it stupid card".

Rhetorical baiting - I do this to posters I've grown tired of. I ask questions not only knowing the answers, but knowing they won't answer them. Often repeating questions, and pointing out all previously missed questions are great ways to send the message home.

Battle of Tangents - If the other person seems to lack focus, a great way to slowly work away at them is to break into tangent debates. The key is to come out on top in these, but then manage to point out that they're pointless to the original topic (which then pulls it back).

-RPGamer-

In doing those things you are proving that you cannot win the argument on honest grounds. Tricks aren't clever when the process of debate is the entire purpose. If you have to resort to tangential or baited arguments to win, you lost.

Few people are willing to take the honest grounds here, the people I think will go that route I take. And you don't lose by using these tactics, that's an overly eutopian view imho. The fact that others openly allow me to use these on them is part of the fun I have here.

If I respect the user I'll enter the debate on a more neutral basis, otherwise it's free game to have fun with. Albeit there have been instances where I felt the person slowly earned respect through the debate, and I openly admit and switch tones. I've also been had by these said tactics, and when all was said and done they were some of my best debates here despite being had.

I didn't mean honesty in terms of respect, I meant in terms of your own debating skill. Using those tricks is a hollow victory IMO. I like watching others use them, its entertaining, but my opinion of those usersis not favorable. I fail to see the connection between winning honestly, and overly eutopian thinking. I don't fight 12 year olds just to boost my ego, but it would eutopian to expect me not to? Instead, I win some and I lose some with more matched opponents, but the wins have meaning.

[QUOTE="TheGrossPervert"]God, that crap was so long. Why is this a sticky when no one cares and we already know this stuff? God!Jandurin

And knocks the guy off the bike with a steak.

Your favorite animal is a Liger.

Who are you?

Napoloean Dynamite! I'm glad someone caught it. :)

I didn't mean honesty in terms of respect, I meant in terms of your own debating skill. Using those tricks is a hollow victory IMO. I like watching others use them, its entertaining, but my opinion of those usersis not favorable. I fail to see the connection between winning honestly, and overly eutopian thinking. I don't fight 12 year olds just to boost my ego, but it would eutopian to expect me not to? Instead, I win some and I lose some with more matched opponents, but the wins have meaning.

whoisryanmack

I've been here for over six years now (sadly?), I try to keep things fresh. Having said that playing with people is something I do from time to time. I don't even have to "win" or even like my side of the argument in all honesty, I do it more for the spirit of seeing where the conversation will go. It's not like I have to do this at times, I just choose to do it for fun.

Eutopian in the sense that everyone should be on fair playing grounds, everyone showing their hand right up front. It gets boring sometimes, I don't mind playing games here, nor do I mind others doing the same to me. Debating, much like gaming, can extend into psychological battles, not just cut and dry fact for fact (or in the case of gaming skill for skill) exchanges.

I fail to see where the age mentioned or ego play into this. I don't care how old people here are, nor do I care about and supposed ego this place garners. I openly admitted I've lost to these tactics, was there an ego boost there? No. Losing a debate even on "unfair" grounds is all part of learning imho. I carry the same mentality into gaming, where losing is more of a tool than this overly negative experience.

The wins/loses all have meaning no matter the tactic being used.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]

[QUOTE="TheGrossPervert"]God, that crap was so long. Why is this a sticky when no one cares and we already know this stuff? God!TheGrossPervert

And knocks the guy off the bike with a steak.

Your favorite animal is a Liger.

Who are you?

Napoloean Dynamite! I'm glad someone caught it. :)

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="IbukiNinja"]Remember you create the assumption, therefore it is yours.IbukiNinja

Nope. Will not take it. If my wording was confusing he could've ask me what I mean, and not assume. Do you not agree?

I think I rambled a bit.

Bold text. Did you assume I have that problem?

"You don't know what a fanboy really is then. I guess it took up a new meaning, so I wouldn't blame you for not knowing. My brother, dad, and grandfather are all Ford fanboys. Do they complain about Ford? all the freaking time. Do they like what chevy has beocme? Yes,My dadwas even thinking about getting one until my Brother talked him out of it. You putting irrational judgement with the word "fanboy". As I said before, the meaning has totally change."

Your words right there Ibuki. And it was that bolded part that caught my eye, leaving very little ambiguity. You said Jandurin DID NOT KNOW what a fanboy is, which in turn heavily implies that you DO. Yeah you mentioned the possibility of a whole new meaning, but with the context of your opening words, that what ever way you knew it as MUST be how it is/was with no possibility of other definitions. So I called you on your presumption.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

I didn't mean honesty in terms of respect, I meant in terms of your own debating skill. Using those tricks is a hollow victory IMO. I like watching others use them, its entertaining, but my opinion of those usersis not favorable. I fail to see the connection between winning honestly, and overly eutopian thinking. I don't fight 12 year olds just to boost my ego, but it would eutopian to expect me not to? Instead, I win some and I lose some with more matched opponents, but the wins have meaning.

-RPGamer-

I've been here for over six years now (sadly?), I try to keep things fresh. Having said that playing with people is something I do from time to time. I don't even have to "win" or even like my side of the argument in all honesty, I do it more for the spirit of seeing where the conversation will go. It's not like I have to do this at times, I just choose to do it for fun.

Eutopian in the sense that everyone should be on fair playing grounds, everyone showing their hand right up front. It gets boring sometimes, I don't mind playing games here, nor do I mind others doing the same to me. Debating, much like gaming, can extend into psychological battles, not just cut and dry fact for fact (or in the case of gaming skill for skill) exchanges.

I fail to see where the age mentioned or ego play into this. I don't care how old people here are, nor do I care about and supposed ego this place garners. I openly admitted I've lost to these tactics, was there an ego boost there? No. Losing a debate even on "unfair" grounds is all part of learning imho. I carry the same mentality into gaming, where losing is more of a tool than this overly negative experience.

The wins/loses all have meaning no matter the tactic being used.

It's a matter of taste, which is why I would say "questionable" rather than "unacceptable". There are dozens of other debate tactics I have not listed that I consider wholly acceptable - but those are really something that would be developed over time. Most of them are obvious - compare apples to apples, always consider value, never accept a statistic without a sound source, et cetera...

Any illogical or simply weak argument can be dismantled on the first response, it is only in debates against a strong argument that these tactics can give you the upper hand. Assuming that strong argument came from a skilled debater, petty tricks won't accomplish anything. I'm against the use of questionable tactics because they breed ill will, I'll use them myself sometimes, though I've been really reducing their usage to simply putting a counter-argument out on the first post and moving on. Flashy debate tactics give the impression that a fanboy or fakeboy was standing on solid ground in the first place - that their ideas carried merit, which isn't the impression I want to give.

It's a matter of taste, which is why I would say "questionable" rather than "unacceptable". There are dozens of other debate tactics I have not listed that I consider wholly acceptable - but those are really something that would be developed over time. Most of them are obvious - compare apples to apples, always consider value, never accept a statistic without a sound source, et cetera...

subrosian

I don't always use them for the upper hand, as I said I often use these tactics fully aware that I don't even favor that side of the argument. In other words, devil's advocate.

I don't mind giving a fanboy/fakeboy some solid ground, it's that much better when it crumbles, or maybe even when he/she can build it soundly. It's kind of like a book, I don't want to read a bookand be done within minutes b/c the ending was given up front. I would rather the book (read: debate) have time to ripen. Also, as I said before I've seen people pull some thing out of no where and surprise me on what I thought would be a relatively easy debate, and I don't think I would have gotten to witness that had I not given them time to think of a viable counter.

Ibikininja hmm you are way to similar to Shungo. A SFIII lover with a low post count and most of the same links to the same vids as Shungo. Its got me curious :P

And this is why I can't consider myself the best poster on System Wars. There are so many other great ones out there. Even when I create amazing topics this, man this is just on another level. I gotta step my game up. When I was thinking about what the next revolutionary topic to post about. This is the kinda reaction I wanted. Its not easy trying to come up with something fresh and original.Blackbond

There is a lack of recognition for just regular solid posters who care about gaming, which is partially what drives some people to fanboyism / fakeboyism.

:o
Wow. That was simultaneously one of the most dense, esoteric, and BRILLIANT posts I've seen in SW.
Well said, subrosian.Hoffgod

I agree. Excellent post subrosian!

The Socratic Method (Springing a trap), is generally accepted in Western Society, and is not meant to be degrading to ther person or persons involved in it.

If it is an acceptable method in society, I don't see what's wrong with it here.

Good read.I like the word metagame I only used that word on Magic,YGO.

Metagame applies to everything these days.

These are just one poster's observations and suggestions concerning SW. Not policy.

I don't know if anyone has asked this earlier on in this thread but... Are these "The Guidelines to Make System Wars a Better Place", or "T3H RUL3Z" and you'll get modded if you don't follow them?brightshadow525

For you they're rules for everyone else they are guidlines;)

good info,but basicly stuff we allready know.

and anyways what was with the d&d references?

And this is why I can't consider myself the best poster on System Wars. There are so many other great ones out there. Even when I create amazing topics this, man this is just on another level. I gotta step my game up. When I was thinking about what the next revolutionary topic to post about. This is the kinda reaction I wanted. Its not easy trying to come up with something fresh and original.Blackbond

Bond to be perfectly honest some of the best forumers that SW has ever hadare the ones that don't make threads at all, or if they do they are very few and far between.

Subrosian, you are the Sun Tzu of System Wars.

Geez, just got off a 3 day ban i've been itching to get in here.

ok as for the post itself, it was pretty good, it just put into words information anyone whould know after being here a few months.

However, i dotn agree with the proposal that the metagame hurts sw. In fact, i agree with everything RPGamer said. the metagame is what makes sw fun.

How is it "dishonest" or 'unacceptable" or "unfair" to use tactics such as baiting, trapping and pwning? I use almost all the tactics frequently. The way i see it, the metagame is a game of wits. I could have lived without all the D&D references, but heres what i know of the term metagame. In Super Smash brothers, "metagame" refers to "the game within the game". It comes to a point where physical skill and human reflex can only go so far in competitive smash, and you have to outthink your opponent to win. that is a metagame. the game within the game.

There is more to sw that facts and opinions. I think the use of metagame tactics comes with experience as rpgamer said. It gets to a point where sw gets boring so i find new ways to get things interesting. What i commonly do is instead of heading straight to a debate, i would bait the user in question into responding to me a second time. If he does, i know he's up for a debate. Sometimes, they fall predicably into my trap which i already knew the answer to, and other times, they surprise me and come with an arguement i wasnt expecting, and so i have to adjust myself to adapt to thier unexpected rebut. It makes things interesting.

Plus, it is in no way unfair to use metagame tactics. People should be able to see them coming a mile away and respond accordingly. A few days ago i tried to use these same tactics in a debate against cakeorrdeath. Being the skilled debater he is, he didnt fall for them so i had to adjust my strategy. that made things very interesting. It was one of the best debates i had been in in a very long time. If someone is defeated by a metagame tactic ( a game of wits) they probably werent worth debating anyway. Which is why i use the metagame almost constantly (except personal attacks and copy&paste). otherwise SW just gets boring.

Plus, it is in no way unfair to use metagame tactics. JPOBS