LuthySloan wrote:@your feelings of annoyance
Speaking of annoying, because unfortunatly for you i know psychology since 15 years
annonying like anger is a 2ndondary feeling. its creating by judging others behavior or person in a bad manner. like any feeling its created by the person who has the feeling.
(...) and crossing boundaries, IMO and in psychology.
I know something of psychology, too. (We all do, to a certain extent.) And I feel forced to say here, that using a third party (Q) to further any argument crosses a professional and personal boundary in psychology, too -- and is very bad practice. Moreover, that specific comment -- even though I can understands where it comes from -- is very judgmental regarding that totally irrelevant 3rd party. Judgment, which you yourself are trying to (rightfully, IMO) discredit in the same paragraph.
Lastly, I'm not defending Ensign Q's at times frustrated attitude (please read my lengthy and constructive-critical post in the "bye" topic), but I do think I, seemingly, understand him better than you do. He was certainly not always in a bad mood. (Generalization is probably also not something you want to practice on your patients/clients, I hope.)
Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm annoyed here, and yes, I take responsibility for that -- I felt a self-proclaimed knowledge of psychology was being misused here, and might give off wrong ideas. That annoyance prompted me to write a sharp comment in an already heated (or even worse: in an already cooled-down
) situation, which is -- proven, I think -- totally not my usual style.
But I took this misuse of purported psychological knowledge personally. And that, too, is bad practice -- on my part
I admit.
And ranting... if that means "writing too much IMO"... can mean that you yourself are jealous of long essays
Calling someone jealous on any account when you disagree is... Well, I don't think it's cooperative (which I agree we must strive to be!).
In my case, my "rants" are -- as I've often hinted at -- due to my inability to keep things concise. That, in itself, however, does not detract from any of my (or others') points.
Actually, Luther, I usually enjoy your posts! And your calls for cooperation, bridge-building and understanding. But this post, I had to react on.
On-topic, regarding post length:
I think the extended posts in which formalization of a great (but unofficial) common practice --
-- is proposed, are great steps toward clarity.
This game, and its decks, have become too complex and time-consuming to check decks at the event; and as said, this game is also too much fun to worry about cheating.
Building in new contingencies due to the gradual changes in the game (digital play, grown decks, Corona-forced online high-level play) is NOT the same as saying YOU cheated. (I don't think anybody said that?)
But denying an opponent who wants to see your deck after the game/event, goes a long way to arouse suspicion. You can understand that, I trust. And in digital setting, the only way to ensure the rules is the TD having the deck beforehand, IMO.
Takket wrote:This is a CCG and meta driven game and the thought of someone plowing through to worlds playing a single juggernaut deck in the shadows seems wrong to me. (...) Making the best decks public allows the best players to rise to the top... People who can play many different decks and still thrive.
If you want to get to the top playing the same deck, join the World Poker Tour.