Kirkusjones presents: DirkGently's polite debate corner aka the Thunderdome

[DirkGently]

I think I've maybe derailed the RCotD and new card discussion threads excessively this week, so I think I'm going to take @kirkusjones's idea seriously and set up a separate thread for the sorts of debates that tend to spring up from time to time (or, sometimes, three in a single week). Popcorn is suggested but optional.

To echo Dirk, the answer need not be so simplistic, nor binding.

But that's the entire point of asking the question: to take a complex situation full of uncertainty and attempt to make it simple and unambiguous. Any answer that is complex or ambiguous is effectively indistinguishable from giving no answer at all.

Not at all. The "I wasn't planning on it" answer is, essentially, a commitment that an attack won't take place unless something significant changes. That is more ambiguous than a straight "no", but if the asker isn't planning to change anything significantly, then it's nearly as good as a "no", and a lot better than no answer. If the asker IS planning to do something significant, then it is probably inadequate from their perspective and the dialogue will presumably continue until either an agreement is reached or negotiations are abandoned. In my experience, the vast majority of the time the asker is not planning to do anything significant and "I wasn't planning on it" satisfies them.

None of the measured communication you're offering solves the position of "if you're going to attack me with Ulamog, I'm going to kill you first." The only way to placate that is going to be dealmaking. You can go into infinite permutations of what situations you may or may not attack them with Ulamog, but they're asking the question because they want to get you to not attack, and are going to choose an option that reaches that result. That decision has already been made, the rest is just bargaining with more words.

If the ulamog player wasn't planning to attack them in the first place, then there's no dealmaking necessary. Ulamog player just answers "wasn't planning on it" and things presumably proceed amicably. If that's inadequate for some reason (perhaps the asking player is planning to do something semi-significant and wants assurances that it won't change ulamog's mind) then they can get into those weeds if they want.

Assuming that the asker absolutely cannot handle an attack from ulamog and would kill the ulamog player if that was a threat, then yes, from their perspective the negotiations will always end in not getting attacked by ulamog - either via an agreement or via killing the opponent. But how that plays out depends a lot on the board state. If attacking the ulamog player for lethal will guarantee them getting killed by the third player, then they have a very weak bargaining position. If they could kill the ulamog player and still have a strong chance against the third player, then they have a strong bargaining position. So how many caveats/demands the ulamog player can reasonably extract from their agreement not to attack will depend upon those factors. If the asker's position is too strong and will only accept a "no" with no caveats or demands, then ulamog is probably dead either way and so they might as well decline to answer - but that's only true on the far end of the spectrum, not across the board.

Is "are you going to attack me with Ulamog" an obvious threat or an innocent question?

I don't like this dichotomy. It's a threat in the game. That carries zero percent of the moral weight of making a threat irl.

As far as how the other person perceives it, it's probably going to come down to tone and specific word choice and a bunch of squishy human factors that are difficult to examine with any real rigor.

I do agree that ultimately most questions are implied threats within the context of the game, but I don't think that really means anything in practical terms. A threat is just another kind of move, it's not inherently malicious like it would be irl.

The question itself engendered hostility. If insight into their perspective was the goal, the wrong question was asked. If somebody asks "do you wanna fight me?", the hostility isn't coming from an answer. You wouldn't look at someone answering that question and say "well if you didn't want to fight, you should have just said no, you didn't have to make it hostile" when they try to walk away from the question.

I think drawing parallels to real-life interactions are going to lead you to wrong conclusions.

This is a game where everyone is trying to kill each other. "Hostility" within that framework is not avoidable.

[tstorm823]

If attacking the ulamog player for lethal will guarantee them getting killed by the third player, then they have a very weak bargaining position. If they could kill the ulamog player and still have a strong chance against the third player, then they have a strong bargaining position. So how many caveats/demands the ulamog player can reasonably extract from their agreement not to attack will depend upon those factors. If the asker's position is too strong and will only accept a "no" with no caveats or demands, then ulamog is probably dead either way and so they might as well decline to answer - but that's only true on the far end of the spectrum, not across the board.

As it turns out, that was essentially the situation (as explained in another post in the other thread).

"Ulamog was getting beat up for ramping a ton and putting little defense up against chip damage. He was at the lowest life and should have at least offered the possibility of not attacking the bargaining player. He (Ulamog) was in the WORST position at the table, and really stood to gain the most from that deal (another turn to live). The experienced player was just trying to milk some extra value out of Ulamog by pointing the attack elsewhere for a turn."

So the situation was the Ulamog itself was a threat, but the player was easy to kill with seemingly little repercussion, and the asker was "trying to milk some extra value" by convincing the effectively dead player to hurt someone else. If the Ulamog player has put themselves in a position where they have no defense, are easy to kill, and their death is immediately beneficial to the table, their error is already done, and their best hope is the sort of prisoner's dilemma where everyone else's best interest is Ulamog dying, but each opponent individually would prefer if someone else committed the resources to actually making that happen. And one can't thread that needle if they pick a side.

This is a game where everyone is trying to kill each other. "Hostility" within that framework is not avoidable.

Not avoidable in the long term, but the beauty of multiplayer politics is that your long-term enemies can be short-term allies. At a 4 player table, you have two mutual enemies with each opponent, so even while all in competition for the last person standing, you spend as much time in common interest with them as you do working against each other.

Risk, if you've played it, is a good strategic comparison. When one player is snowballing, the others avoid unnecessary conflict with one another so as not to waste resources that would otherwise be opposing the player with the lead. When there is no clearly defined leader, it's rare to see people throw large numbers of troops at each other, its usually just minor battles at the edges while people build their resources, since throwing yourself at any random player makes you both weaker against the others. But once you've made an aggressive move against someone, once you've made clear you intend to remove them from the game in the short term, you're basically guaranteed that any additional resources they have will be aimed your direction in a way they weren't before you attacked.

[PrimevalCommander]

Since this is kicking off with the deal making topic, I'll paste my last response from the RCotD thread.

If the statement is that blatant, then one must make the choice, do I value Life, or Freedom If someone is using obvious threats instead of innocent questions, then the mood of the conversation changes and I typically see dramatically different results.

Is "are you going to attack me with Ulamog" an obvious threat or an innocent question? A yes or no question where the wrong answer, or even no answer, means instant death, I would say qualifies as an obvious threat rather than an innocent question. Honestly, the majority of yes or no questions are not totally innocent: they are loaded questions by nature, pressuring people into binary options designed by the asker rather than the asked. Closed-ended questions always carry implications.

"What are you thinking of doing on your turn?" is an open ended question, which (depending on turn order) may allow the second person opportunity to volunteer information like "I think I'll attack player C" if that seems like information that can help by sharing, without the question implying hostilities. "Are you going to attack me with Ulamog?" carries the assumption that Ulamog is attacking, and both yes and no would amount to declaring hostilities at someone, as "no" naturally implies attacking someone else. That question puts the recipient in a worse position just by being asked, hence why people feel antagonized in those situations. f the goal is to cooperate with someone, that's not a very effective method. And like, what if player C has a Fog, and saves the Ulamog player. Suddenly the attacker is in a bad position of their own making, having declared hostilities against someone with a threat on board.

I can see how just not answering yields some information, and how asking leading questions and judging responses, with or without answer, can feel targeting. It depends on the individuals in that situation, their relationships, and the context of the situation. We don't do that every turn looking for free information to try and min/max every action. We just simply answer "maybe", which is so noncommittal as to be a non answer, and you know to just play the action at face value at that point.

I agree asking "Are you going to attack me with Ulamog" is not innocent, but it is not as aggressive as saying "If you plan on attacking me with Ulamog I will kill you". If we weren't looking for out of game information we wouldn't be asking the question at all. With strangers, a no-answer might give them more information than we would like. Amongst friends a "maybe" will eventually be known as a legitimate no-answer as you use threat assessment normally and take action according to the board state. I guess it depends on how obsessed one gets with the psychology of asking questions and poking for information through non verbal means. I try not to get that serious (most days).

Also nothing is stopping player 3 and 4 from interjecting with "I'll save you if you attack them on your turn!". I've seen and done similar things before. Makes deal making pretty funny when your attempt to gain value through politics backfires as the other players have better offers than yours. Good times. What I don't like is "Who can offer me the best deal to NOT kill them?" I ignore that, and our group doesn't ask those questions because they are pretty pointless. I see this happen in YouTube games and it just seems stupid to facilitate a bidding war so that the clear leader gains extra value over you.

[DirkGently]

As it turns out, that was essentially the situation (as explained in another post in the other thread).

Sure, although any specific situation is just one data point and not particularly relevant to a theoretical discussion. But we can talk through it as an example since I think it illustrates my point fine.

So the situation was the Ulamog itself was a threat, but the player was easy to kill with seemingly little repercussion, and the asker was "trying to milk some extra value" by convincing the effectively dead player to hurt someone else. If the Ulamog player has put themselves in a position where they have no defense, are easy to kill, and their death is immediately beneficial to the table, their error is already done,

It's not necessarily an error if they can leverage their position into survival. Possibly the asker would have killed him immediately except that the big scary ulamog getting pointed elsewhere was tempting enough to make them consider letting him live with assurances ulamog wouldn't come at them. It's at least a possibility.

Anyway even if I've screwed up it doesn't mean I throw up my hands and quit. I'll take whatever opportunities I can get, including making assurances to other players. One of my favorite games of all time revolved around making assurances turn after turn until I found my window.

and their best hope is the sort of prisoner's dilemma where everyone else's best interest is Ulamog dying, but each opponent individually would prefer if someone else committed the resources to actually making that happen. And one can't thread that needle if they pick a side.

They don't need to thread the needle if the other players aren't presenting lethal to them. They can just side with the person who presents the immediate threat.

Or, unless there was a stipulation I missed, they could just agree not to attack anyone with Ulamog and continue to survive in stasis until the board state becomes more favorable for them to turn aggressive. The asker wants them to attack other players but isn't demanding it.

Not avoidable in the long term, but the beauty of multiplayer politics is that your long-term enemies can be short-term allies. At a 4 player table, you have two mutual enemies with each opponent, so even while all in competition for the last person standing, you spend as much time in common interest with them as you do working against each other.

I'd say it depends a lot on the game. When someone is a clear archenemy, sure, but that's not necessarily a high percentage of the game. Often it's a very low percentage, right before that player wins.

Either way, though, "hostility" "threats" etc are carrying a lot of extra emotional baggage. I have no issue with my "ally" "threatening" my life in a game of magic. If we're both seemingly aligned against an archenemy, and he says "hey, just to double check, you're not going to attack me are you?" - and he has a lethal attack against me where he'd personally lose nothing and he would definitely do it if I didn't agree - I'm not bothered by that whatsoever. He's just playing the game. Whereas if someone threatened my life IRL I would be somewhat perturbed.

Risk, if you've played it, is a good strategic comparison. When one player is snowballing, the others avoid unnecessary conflict with one another so as not to waste resources that would otherwise be opposing the player with the lead. When there is no clearly defined leader, it's rare to see people throw large numbers of troops at each other, its usually just minor battles at the edges while people build their resources, since throwing yourself at any random player makes you both weaker against the others. But once you've made an aggressive move against someone, once you've made clear you intend to remove them from the game in the short term, you're basically guaranteed that any additional resources they have will be aimed your direction in a way they weren't before you attacked.

Risk is only good for making very surface-level analogies. Once we get into specifics I don't think it's very useful. There's much less relevant hidden information - at least to my recollection, it's basically just the cards you can turn in for a predetermined boost of troops, and it's either y/n if you have the ability to turn in cards. And there's much less potential for a surprise burst of power that changes the board state - there's no equivalent to "that guy wasn't doing anything relevant all game and then suddenly he played a 2-card combo and won." You can rely a lot more on someone's best interests aligning with yours against an archenemy in a stable, relatively known context like Risk, whereas in magic maybe your "ally" topdecks a craterhoof and suddenly your interests don't align anymore in the space of a single draw step. Having assurances instead of assumptions makes a lot more sense as the game is increasingly hard to predict.

[PrimevalCommander]

Or, unless there was a stipulation I missed, they could just agree not to attack anyone with Ulamog and continue to survive in stasis until the board state becomes more favorable for them to turn aggressive. The asker wants them to attack other players but isn't demanding it.

Yes, Ulamog player could just not attack anyone, and play some defense until they could attack advantageously. That particular player wouldn't do that, as they are not very skilled in that way. But that would probably have been the right move. The attacking player was not at risk of a lethal counter strike from me or player 4. Please don't ask what life totals were, and unfortunately I don't know who won the game.

Also the point about an obvious threat or innocent question may have been pointed to me. Since I used that phrase first.

The most common in-game threat I see is with spot removal. Where a player is holding the removal and before a beefy boy attacks something like "You don't want to attack me with that." is said. Now if I'm just looking to get some chip damage in, or wanting a combat damage/attack trigger from my creature, I'll probably heed the warning. If I'm looking to knock the king off the pedestal, he better back it up.

Most common thing I do is when I'm playing with a commander/creature that wants to attack, but is not very strong, I'll try and ask/deal for a chump block or let a small amount of damage through. Sometimes as simple as "Will you double block Zurzoth, Chaos Rider with your guys if I attack? Usually I only ask if there is a utility dork in play that could block, but you really just want it to sit there. If there are two 2/2 zombies I fully expect my 2/3 to get double blocked.

[kirkusjones]

As you have acknowledged that I am the originator and therefore majority owner of this IP, I move that the thread be renamed "kirkusjones presents: dirkgently's argument arena" or some derivation thereof, lest you want a cease and desist from my legal team.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

As you have acknowledged that I am the originator and therefore majority owner of this IP, I move that the thread be renamed "kirkusjones presents: dirkgently's argument arena" or some derivation thereof, lest you want a cease and desist from my legal team.

@DirkGently you can trust in this man's naming conventions. He named the religious movement of which I am Supreme Douchelord and I've never looked back.

[DirkGently]

@DirkGently you can trust in this man's naming conventions. He named the religious movement of which I am Supreme Douchelord and I've never looked back.

Lol, happy to add his credit to the name, but I like the juxtaposition of "polite debate corner" and "Thunderdome" so I'm keeping that part of it. If you think "argument arena" is better we could debate about it though...

[Hermes_]

Can't we just get Beyond thunderdome?

[DirkGently]

Just for the spirit of Christmas harmony, post whatever opinion you like and I'll agree with it. One day only!

[5colorsrainbow]

Just for the spirit of Christmas harmony, post whatever opinion you like and I'll agree with it. One day only!

Color Identify rules should let you run hybrid cards like they can be used in other formats :D

[DirkGently]

Color Identify rules should let you run hybrid cards like they can be used in other formats :D

Of course, hybrids are intended as being either color, so they should be treated differently than normal multicolor mana symbols

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Just for the spirit of Christmas harmony, post whatever opinion you like and I'll agree with it. One day only!

Oh %$#%$#% it. I can't believe I didn't see this. What a missed opportunity!

[DirkGently]

Just for the spirit of Christmas harmony, post whatever opinion you like and I'll agree with it. One day only!

Oh %$#%$#% it. I can't believe I didn't see this. What a missed opportunity!

Eh, I'll give you one for free even though you missed the deadline. 'Tis the season. What's your hottest take? xD

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Just for the spirit of Christmas harmony, post whatever opinion you like and I'll agree with it. One day only!

Oh %$#%$#% it. I can't believe I didn't see this. What a missed opportunity!

Eh, I'll give you one for free even though you missed the deadline. 'Tis the season. What's your hottest take? xD

Tuck effects promoted better overall deckbuilding and provided a natural, balanced check to power creep in the command zone, and should therefore be brought back into the commander rule set.

[DirkGently]

Tuck effects promoted better overall deckbuilding and provided a natural, balanced check to power creep in the command zone, and should therefore be brought back into the commander rule set.

All very good reasons - although the most important reason for me is seeing the look on my opponents face when I tuck their Jodah or Tergrid or Chulane or whatever other obnoxious commander.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Tuck effects promoted better overall deckbuilding and provided a natural, balanced check to power creep in the command zone, and should therefore be brought back into the commander rule set.

All very good reasons - although the most important reason for me is seeing the look on my opponents face when I tuck their Jodah or Tergrid or Chulane or whatever other obnoxious commander.

Alright, we've had our fun. Now let's lock horns. What do you really think? Surely you must disagree on either the point or the reasoning or both.

[DirkGently]

Tuck effects promoted better overall deckbuilding and provided a natural, balanced check to power creep in the command zone, and should therefore be brought back into the commander rule set.

All very good reasons - although the most important reason for me is seeing the look on my opponents face when I tuck their Jodah or Tergrid or Chulane or whatever other obnoxious commander.

Alright, we've had our fun. Now let's lock horns. What do you really think? Surely you must disagree on either the point or the reasoning or both.

Haha, honestly I hate to say it but I don't have strong feelings.

If I was going to mount a counter argument it would be:

-it really skewed the value of sac outlets (and tutors) and kinda forced most decks to run some even with no other support. (Counter-counter: that's kinda true with other neutralizing removal)
-it was mostly exclusive to blue and white (cc: white should have good removal - less so blue though)
-there are many other neutralizing effects available these days so it's not as important, and those methods usually have more diverse counterplay. (Cc…I can't think of one tbh)
-having your commander permanently lost with little option for recovery is frustrating and incentivises more generic deck construction (cc: they print a lot of broken crap these days that's gotta die forever ccc: yeah but people don't always do good threat assessment, losing a fair 2-drop commander to a t3 bant charm and then sitting on your hands all game sucks)

[tstorm823]

My turn to attempt contention:

Possibility Storm is a serious card that should be taken seriously.: It is simultaneously disruptive to opponents while able to be built around to advance the controller's win condition.

[EonAon]

How about moments you want scream at folks; I was on the commander discord and saw a deck in the brewing section I am actually starting to brew myself. Go in there start by showing some tech I'm adding to mine, and while isn't liked I understand how I deck build isn't everyone's taste. Keep an eye on the thread.

Next person comes up and says oh you should remove "X" card and I call them out saying you should never cut the card since it combos with the commander they then say quote "Yes, it's why I would remove it. It's a very basic combo, easier to pull off than Consult+Thoracle in a deck that is otherwise not at all competitive"
The combo being Shalai and Hallar and The Red Terror btw a win condition to the deck. But giving advice to make a deck LESS competitive? WTH?

[kirkusjones]

How about moments you want to do a Homer Simpson on folks; I was on the commander discord and saw a deck in the brewing section I am actually starting to brew myself. Go in there start by showing some tech I'm adding to mine, and while isn't liked I understand how I deck build isn't everyone's taste. Keep an eye on the thread.

Next person comes up and says oh you should remove "X" card and I call them out saying you should never cut the card since it combos with the commander they then say quote "Yes, it's why I would remove it. It's a very basic combo, easier to pull off than Consult+Thoracle in a deck that is otherwise not at all competitive"
The combo being Shalai and Hallar and The Red Terror btw a win condition to the deck. But giving advice to make a deck LESS competitive? WTH?

Not everyone loves A+B combos. I switched from a not CEDH in name only group to a much less competitive one over the summer. It took me a while to come around and understand the general ethos of the group even after they explained that they don't play fetches, tutors or infinite combos. My decks and deckbuilding process has changed a lot to fit in with that.

It took time and I have a big stack of staples I don't play anymore, but the games, for the most part, are much more enjoyable than when I used to take relatively optimal good stuff decks to play with randos at the LGS.

Like most things, it's about context.

[EonAon]

its the otherwise not competitive line that really irks me though. Like yeah I know this isnt CEDH material. I wonder what they would think if the poster had put in Mayael's Aria as another alt win con.

[kirkusjones]

its the otherwise not competitive line that really irks me though. Like yeah I know this isnt CEDH material. I wonder what they would think if the poster had put in Mayael's Aria as another alt win con.

Seems like they consider A + B combos to be competitive, especially when A is the commander? Again, it's about context. Ask the poster what they consider competitive if it bugs you that much.

[tstorm823]

Think of it this way: if your opponent's know you have a card in your deck that if you draw and cast can immediately end the game, they are obligated to either save removal for you specifically at all times or focus you down before you draw it. If they do neither of those things, they could lose to you from a board with just your commander on any turn you have 4 mana. That's proper understanding of threats, especially if you're not playing against people packing the same heat.

If you build a deck that is otherwise incapable of handling that pressure but you put an effectively one-card win condition in it, you are going to have a bad time, as you've made yourself public enemy without the ability to defend yourself.

[DirkGently]

My turn to attempt contention:

Possibility Storm is a serious card that should be taken seriously.: It is simultaneously disruptive to opponents while able to be built around to advance the controller's win condition.

Outside of Mishra, Artificer Prodigy and Neera, Wild Mage I can't think of a good way to build around it to any great effect. It's obviously very high impact but controlling that impact seems difficult. And since it's outside the command zone, if you're significantly warping the deck to exploit it I think the deck overall probably becomes worse.

I guess there's stuff that cares about number of spells cast which are reasonably effective with it, so there's that. I suppose that does cover a decent amount of ground.

Obviously there's a high potential to backfire - personally I don't like playing with or against the card for that reason. I like the game to be as stable as possible because the less chaotic a game is, the more advantage I get from my typically-greater experience. But in a balanced game where everyone is equal experience then I'm sure the right deck could have a sufficiently high EV from the card to justify running it, since the backfires will be outnumbered by the successes.

Is that enough of a contention or is that more or less in line with your thoughts on it?

But giving advice to make a deck LESS competitive? WTH?

I'd say it comes down a lot to specifics.

"Personally I would not run that card" - good
"Don't run that card" - bad

Personally I would not run the card since it's boring (and UB too), but it is dependent on the power level of the meta ofc.

Not everyone loves A+B combos. I switched from a not CEDH in name only group to a much less competitive one over the summer. It took me a while to come around and understand the general ethos of the group even after they explained that they don't play fetches, tutors or infinite combos.

I always find these sorts of lists frustrating. Obviously fast infinites are undesirable for a casual group, but a consistent manabase isn't ruining any games imo. And tutors can be fine depending what you're searching. (unless it's a time consideration?) And for that matter, there are plenty of janky 4-card infinites that aren't a problem at all either.

People just suck at identifying what the actual problems are. You can't make a list of broad categories and say "once we remove those, everything is fine." There will be a lot of collateral damage, and there will always be "the next worst thing".

Think of it this way: if your opponent's know you have a card in your deck that if you draw and cast can immediately end the game, they are obligated to either save removal for you specifically at all times or focus you down before you draw it. If they do neither of those things, they could lose to you from a board with just your commander on any turn you have 4 mana. That's proper understanding of threats, especially if you're not playing against people packing the same heat.

If you build a deck that is otherwise incapable of handling that pressure but you put an effectively one-card win condition in it, you are going to have a bad time, as you've made yourself public enemy without the ability to defend yourself.

Not holding up removal is a gamble, but depending on the game state it could be a good gamble - and likely will be. Of course the more tutors etc are in the deck, the more risky it becomes.

I remember a game of limited where my opponent was potentially dead to a card he knew was in my deck, so he took an otherwise very suboptimal play because "if I don't, then I might lose to that card" (sorry I don't remember specifics it was 10 years ago). Yes, you might lose to that card but if you warp your play around answering that one card then you'll probably die to everything else. This game is about weighing the risks, not avoiding them entirely, because you can't. Knowing when to say "I will almost certainly lose if you have that card no matter what, so I will proceed on the assumption that you don't have it" is a big level up moment imo.

I didn't have the card, btw.

Setting that aside, there's an interesting thing I've thought about which I would call "the paradox of power". If you put in a 2-card infinite with your commander, it makes your deck "more powerful" in a sort of objective sense, but the more you centralize your deck around that combo the more predictable you become, and the more likely you end up eating removal right out of the gate and just get steamrolled. Especially if you're running protective spells - now removal isn't as reliable against you, so people will fire it off whenever your shields are down, even if you don't have the combo in hand, which can make you lose a lot more.

Of course at a certain point it stops mattering as much - a thoracle cEDH deck will probably be able to combo out against a casual table even if everyone is holding up 100% of their answers. But I think a lot of scrubs - and by "a lot of scrubs" I mostly mean Jon - will power up their decks but find themselves treading water because the stronger they get, the more people will interact with them, even when they aren't currently capable of powerful things.