Jump to content

Pharaoh Atem

┬╗Retired Staff
  • Content count

    20733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Pharaoh Atem last won the day on October 11 2016

Pharaoh Atem had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15836 RAWR means ilu in dinosaur

About Pharaoh Atem

  • Rank
    The Ruler of Benevolence - Your Translator
  • Birthday 07/05/88

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://ygorganization.com
  • Facebook URL
    Earlskyhawk
  • Twitter
    @ygorganization

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ohio. Huffman Prairie.
  • Interests
    Hanging out with my friends and family.

Recent Profile Visitors

8253 profile views
  1. communal perspective is not necessarily tied to actual material conditions, or to facts. if you want to win, you will focus on datapoints and careful interpretation of those datapoints.
  2. and yet note what happens when you become like me you know, unconcerned w/ matter of social standing you can play bad decks w/o begrudging others for playing less bad ones, knowing circumstances do not favor you, because "the closest thing to Super Poly in Shaddoll right now is Curse of the Shadow Prison, and god damn it, I am going to eat your goddamn cards, and I choose to lose more often to make that happen, because it's fucking hilarious."
  3. (this shit is something I've been observing since 2005 nyukka)
  4. there's also something to be said for how certain things taken for granted at the highest levels of competitive play as facts-of-life can in and of themselves lead to simplified gamestates, albeit simplified differently from how lower levels of competitive play can lead to simplified gamestates in this capacity, the under-competitive perspective of what is "fun" can be viewed at times as an understandable, incomplete, flawed attempt to escape specific forms of simplified gamestate, that stumbles either accidentally or on-purpose into other forms of simplified gamestate. Disliking the sort of way games can end in competitive play, and/or how we get to that end, is not fun-police in and of itself: what leads to fun-police status is "you didn't think this shit through, so ultimately your preferred changes make the game no better in an objective sense."
  5. Ancient player haha who still plays?

    Welcome back
  6. I somehow doubt judges later said that. Anyway, Poison's ATK-increasing effect may be activated during either player's turn. So may its card-destroying effect. If you are assuming monster effects have to be Quick to activate during the opponent's turn, stop. The only class of monster effects that can activate, but as a class must never activate during the opponent's turn would be monsters' Ignition Effects, which activate only during one's own MP.
  7. given the circumstances in which even I have found josh to have done things far worse, I'd still not go that far anyway even if we get stupid popups.
  8. Max Suffridge Memorial Tournament

    Donating $10 to the charity pool. It's so goddamned strange, knowing my teacher is gone.
  9. That was extremely fast. As expected.
  10. YCS San Diego - Nov 18/19

    For LP, ask the HJ and Event Staff. Depending upon player need, someone physically handling cards, dice, coins, LP tracking, et al. can be permitted: policy is vague on this sort of thing for the explicit purpose of not forbidding whatever is necessary to reasonably accomodate the needs of a player with such concerns. For slow play, the only rule that has ever existed is "if the play seems slow to an observing judge after incorporating all known health factors about the player into one's assessment of play speed, it is slow." Your situation does not make you any more or less certain to be cited for slow play than any other player, as far as policy is concerned. You still have an obligation to play briskly: that obligation is vague on purpose because "briskly" will vary not only because of gamestate but also because of player health concerns. Part of the job "judge" is "judging" what an appropriate form of managing that obligation would be, between different situations and different players. This means, naturally, that a player with a health concern that makes it inevitable said player will take longer than a typical player in a given situation to make a play will be granted additional time without penalty, only insofar as the additional time being actually made inevitable by the health concern. No additional time will be granted for any other purpose. This naturally can lead to disputes about whether or not certain instances of time are necessary or not. These disputes happen with players that have no health concerns all the time, so they are no stranger to us. The key in it is that it hinges entirely on judge perception as an impartial bystander: no other opinions hold sway in regard to SP-Minor. So, I'd say your situation changes, but not by much - you are held by the same exact rationale as any other player, but because that rationale is context-sensitive, context can change the exact happenstance. The best you can do is ensure the event judges and staff are informed of your needs.
  11. games are vehicles by which multiple means of securing enjoyment are employed; it isn't necessarily sunk cost fallacy as much as it could very well be appreciation for what makes a franchise "itself" in spite of recognizable design flaws. take my post earlier - while I was typing it, the format where repeat SDB utilization was optimizable to force match wins in EOM exclusively was at the front of my mind. it, to me, makes for an example of a format where flaws in design were something players were very good at ignoring. I propose that, to most players, a "format" isn't the combination of the entire cardpool and that cardpool's ruleset, but a combination of "rules they like to pay attention to" and "cards they like to pay attention to." To those players, the anomalous SDB instance wasn't part of the "format", but just something meant to ruin someone's day. I reject that framing of it, and insist: "the SDB thing is part of the format, and the format is worse for it." There is a strong urge in people for "what is good" and "what I prefer" to match up. This urge is not necessarily logical. One common idiom is "there is no accounting for taste": the meaning of this would be that it is entirely possible, and perhaps reasonable to openly admit, that people may like things that are not objectively good.
  12. upon their growing up, they would not complain about either of those factors. I am unsure about whether or not I was unclear in what I was saying.
  13. I disagree that the solution is to outargue or out-theory. I say this as the nigga who waited until 2017 for DM to get some support worth a damn: the true merit of a format's existence as a product of game design hinges upon embracing its darkest portents, including those portents that through entirely legal means can render gameplay less fun at the highest echelons of play. a format that is enjoyable only by deliberate avoidance of those decklists with the highest possible winrate is a format that honestly isn't designed to be as fun as the imaginary conception of a single player might believe that format to be. the question is, is one going to go to an event to prioritize personal performance, or to prioritize other forms of satisfying one's pursuit of enjoyment? there are multiple ways to enjoy one's self, not all of which are optimized in terms of winrate. if I can come to peace with the fact that my own choices made to optimize my enjoyment of a given event require de-optimizing my winrate, then others need to recognize that their own choices and attitudes might require their own de-optimization of winrate in order to pursue other less tangible ways of securing enjoyment, or I will drag them through the cold rain and mud until they come to terms. I came to terms: so shall all of you. or else. it's not a matter of out-argue or out-theory, it's a matter of coming to terms. a matter of growing up.
  14. Max Suffridge has died

    god damn it.
  15. YCS Toronto 2017

    Orlando was the site of the World Championship I worked at. Not a bad place.
×