I would have thought horrific misogynists like Dydra would feel right at home on the internet.
With regards to the topic I remember reading on Twitter that Alsciende wanted to tighten up the ‘high-placing tournament’ decks category a little - I think that could solve the problem to some extent as there would be an actual location to go if you wanted good decks and not just decks that were interesting or funny for some (not necessarily gameplay related) reasons. Although if I had my way The Oscars would be decklist of the week every week.
To me, it does not come accross that way at all. It may be that the public decides to view a deck and that the larger community has decided that the person who posted the deck believes a certain way; but the interpretation of the “work” while public domain, can’t be used to condemn the “artist” without just cause.
Its unfortunate if you guys really do see these decks only as mockery, or gate keeping. Is it there a bit? I’m sure it is occasionally. But when I wrote mine I had nothing in mind but self deprecational thoughts. I want to pump this deck up that isn’t AMAZINGLY COMPETITIVE because it is AMAZINGLY JANKY. Within my posts is both a love jank and an understanding that it is suboptimal and will fail me if I subject it to the true fires of competition. I am intending to strike both a balance of self criticism and love of the jank with a single posting, and I acknowledge then that the casual viewer may then apply their own frame of reference and interpret the medium as they see fit.
That said, it would be unfortunate to judge the posters based on your interpretation of events as we’re all incomplete and flawed interpreters. It would also be unfortunate to grant sanctity unto a list or a system which is flawed such that we must only ever be srsly serious when evaluating stuff. If a person is allowed to sincerely believe their jank deck is amazing and post it. Then I feel I should be allowed a more self-aware post that acknowledges the truth, even if my acknowledgement is expressed sarcastically.
I found your joke decks amusing, but using the “Nationals 2015” tag as you did for one them is when I thought it started becoming confusing disinformation for new players (heck it confused me when I was filtering for Nationals+NEH ;))
I really just don’t get this. At all. Post a deck. What NRDB as a whole likes is the choice of the user base. Making intentionally bad deck, masquerading it as a good deck, and fabricating it’s popularity to prove a point is really ignorant. That is a form of gatekeeping. It says “Hey we’re gonna make you guys like this shitty deck, just to prove you are bad at decks.”
At least that is how I see it. All this discussion as of late about the competetive divide being “imaginary” or innocent is completely turned on it’s head by this shit.
A joke deck is fine, but using it as a tool to differentiate the community is pretty shitty.
Find me a person who did this. In fact, find me anyone who is doing it now. This is the top list of popular builds, not one of them is a troll post. This issue appears to not actually be an issue.
I believe he’s talking about @Humanoids post. He readily admitted he was trolling. I do know that he would not do anything with malicious intention though, even if it came off that way to some.
The posting of “Trolling decks” is not an act meant to divide the community, though. What I’m saying is that you’re accusing people of malice beyond proof the actual act provides. You’re layering on your interpretation and insinuating that its correct and that the people who did the thing you disagree with were most definitely doing it because they wanted to divide the community. I posit nothing could be further from the truth and that its unfair and divisive to even think that way.
It could be, and likely is, what we call Satire, which is a noble human tradition aimed at actually improving the community by allowing introspection without direct confrontation.
I’ve been liking most of the posts in this thread on either side because I think it’s interesting and complex, and am not sure if there’s a right or wrong position on this. That said, I do want to note that I feel like there’s a contradiction here:
It’s strange to suppose that the troll decks are simultaneously not divisive and all in fun, but at the same time suspect they’re meant to improve a part of the community that the decks are trolling. Does Dan need the improvement the troll decks provide? What about the poster of the Novelist deck? The notion of “Satire” for improvement here implicitly suggests that some deck builders need improvement and I suggest that’s drawing the line you’re trying to maintain isn’t there.
Some troll decks may not be meant to be divisive. They may not be as clear cut as “constructive criticism” but our interpretation and approach to them could be much the same. I can tell someone they need to improve without implying they shouldn’t be part of a community. Similarly, if you read satire its up to you to decide what it means to you.
That may be the case. But someone besides myself felt the need to make a thread in order to discuss troll builds. So surely this isnt unique to me. This is a discussion thats been hashed repeatedly in different forms over the last several weeks. Two articles have been written about the competitive divide, and it is a discussion worth having.
My ability to speak and evaluate differences in value. Natural right: free speech.
A troll deck, if its based in satire, is a way to provide an example that someone can passively absorb without being directly confronted. It may be elitist, or it may not be. It is not directly telling people they need to improve, but it is providing an example that might inspire them to. Or it might not. It may fail to achieve its purpose. Or its purpose may be less valuable to the community than to the artist.
It is a melancholy object to those who run through this great network or travel the beanstalk, when they see the hoppers, the star paths, and code gates, crowded with faux runners of the casual mindset, followed by three, four, or six untowards, all in rags and importuning every reader that their jank is of a holy quality. These runners, instead of being able to run for their honest likes, are forced to employ all their time in exaggeration to beg likes for their helpless decks: who as they grow up either rob other runners of joy, or leave their dear native chat rooms to fight for the Pretender in the cubicles of Corporate greed, or sell themselves to the Pro circuit where they are separated from their abused cash.
Satire doesn’t need to be divisive or elitist. Satire itself isn’t divisive or elitist. It’s the act of poking at the differences and characteristics of the society.
By making a troll deck I did not mean to either be condescending or put myself above others. I did, however, try to illustrate the peculiarities that NRDB posesses. I in no way meant to make fun of players who play janky or uncompetitive decks, I mean, most of us have been there, one of my first decks was a central-breaker-only Andromeda with Keyhole and Crypsis and another was Reina with Blackguard, Snitch and Xanadu.
I do think that Netrunner should not be just about competitive play and who builds the best deck that can beat Astrobiotics, fun synergies have their place too. What I did was pointing out to things that could be seen in a lot of ‘popular’ decks on NRDB, such as claiming to have never been done before in the certain Identity or being Tier 1. I didn’t mean to filter information or make claims on what should or should not be posted on NRDB.
I do, however admit, that the use of Nationals badge was unnecessary and should probably have been omitted.
