Casual Players Alliance Latest Article Replies:
   The Comboist Manifesto Volume ... - by Spiderman (Sep 18, 2:29 PM)
   Whatsthepoint-Fireball: Huh? - by Spiderman (Apr 21, 7:41 PM)
   The Counter-Column: Making it ... - by Turgy22 (Apr 1, 12:06 AM)
   The Counter-Column: Making it ... - by Stephen Bahl (Mar 31, 6:23 PM)
Submit An Article!

 Community Forums
 Mission Statement
 Voting Booth
     Weekly Articles
     Issues & Rants

Get free email!

"Scrubs Corner": Casual & Competitive Player (TM)
By Shawn Houtsinger
Last week I wrote my sarcastic article,“Scrubs Corner”: Rebuttal to Casual Thinking, after reading Eric Turgeon’s article “Defining Casual”.
Then, I will continue on to remark on David James Bruce piece “A Further Debate of Defining Casual”

And lastly, hit on Eric's newest piece on my own submittal: “A Casual Division of Unity”

Part 1

Before even commenting on my own article, I want to start with Eric’s. This is important so you’ll truly understand why I wrote what I did, and why those didn’t understand it. But I must confess the confusion is from people’s lack of reading rather than the style in which I wrote my article.

Nevertheless, let’s rewind.

“Defining Casual”
By: Eric Turgeon

Eric’s writing has a nice flow, an easy read. He’s becoming a truly good writer; a commodity desperately needed in the middle ages of MTG’s growth & spread across the vast Internet plain. If there was a thesis behind his article, it would clearly be this:

To the majority of Magic players, there's no distinction between being a Magic player and being a casual Magic player

And, to be honest, Eric is correct in this assumption. I’ve stated this myself numerous times over the years.

What I found problematic was Eric’s rationale, and how he came by it (or the lack of any) to “colour” his opinions. There are a lot of things said in this article that doesn’t make sense to me because he is basing everything off his own personal beliefs. Don’t get me wrong, we all do this in order to form an opinion, but Eric finds himself in several ‘slippery slopes’ that makes it hard to follow his line of thinking without all-together questioning it.

To further understand my witty rebuttal, you’ll have to go back another article. Yes, this would require you to be an avid reader of Eric’s work, if not Magic in general. I read every Magic article, daily, by 4 websites. Do you really read EVERY article? Yes, 5 days a week. But, I confess I am a speed reader, and considering my major, and field I am, it is an easy task.

So, let’s go back to Eric’s previous work(s). Two in particular will explain why I wrote the article the way did:
“20 Point Fireball: 2005 End of [the]Year Burnout” Eric says:

Why are so many Magic players so pompous? I can't figure this out. So what if you're good at a card game? Believe it or not, some people just play for fun. I can't stand reading a story by some random tournament guy who refers to lesser players as scrubs or noobs or barns. Unless you were conceived on the table of a top 8 and born the day before a PTQ that you then went on to win, chances are you started this game just like the rest of us. So try to show a little respect for your past and give a little encouragement to the people that aspire to become better players, because one day they might be better than you.

And, I agree with Eric’s line of thought. I’ve always made an effort to treat everyone the same, but not always equally. I mean, no matter if you’re a randomly random N00b or, the store’s top Magic player-you’ll receive my respect. But I will treat the top player different when it comes to advice on playing in tournaments. My advice will change when it comes to the Casual Player ™ because he is new to the scene, or he might grasp or “get” what I am saying.
Eric then states in his “Defining Casual” article, that I found contradicting to the above sentence:

A Casual Magic player cannot be defined by words, but by their actions and their attitude. You won't find a Casual Magic player at any tournament, because once they're in it, they lose the casual player's ideals and take on the professional player's ideals. Maybe when they come home and sit back at the kitchen table, they'll be a casual player again, but in that tournament, they could never be a Casual Magic player or they wouldn't have a chance at winning.

Eric, aren’t you being a little hypocritical? You state “you won’t find a Casual Magic player at any tournament, because once they’re in it, they lose the casual player’s ideals and take on the professionals player’s ideal’s.”
Can’t Competitive Players have “Fun” while also playing? Or, show up to play their deck Win/Lose/Draw? Or, how about those who started with FNM or PTQ's, and didn't originate playing those basement/round table games? Do we all need to start, and continue, playing this game with friends at home? The majority of the players at my local card shop started playing this game at FNM. To our group, they would be considered “Casual”. While the other shop I go to, the “Casual” group is those who've only attended a PTQ here and there. While do we have this line? And how do you divide them into sectors? More so, why even bother?
Wouldn’t this for tournaments, or Competitive Players (TM), go against your hate for those “Pompous” Magic players who write articles that mock the Casual Players ™ they beat along the way?

Aren’t you being that a little “Pompous” by basically telling that no Casual Players are at any tournaments; because if they did, they lose their “ideals” while playing at this competitive tournament? Are you sure? Couldn’t what you are saying be taken as offensive to Competitive Players? Or, don’t you think both side of the fence? Should you make a stereotypical judgment across the board?

Frost was correct in questioning:
“Why do they [walls] make good neighbors?”

I do not believe in Casual Players or Competitive Players. I do not want to create this line, boundary, of classification when both play the same game, accomplish the sames goals, and create a tie of friendship.

I will use this terminology to differentiate for better understanding own Eric’s, and others, belief there is. The goal, regardless of what you believe, is to win. You can find this definition in several dictionaries, and thesaurus, but I want to look at one selection the helps to clarify the foggy haze that Eric, and others, have about determining what this “outcome” or “goal” is for this game(s).
Read this
Jesper claims:

As a player you agree to be happy if you win the game, unhappy if you loose the game. This is part of what we may term the game contract and curiously happens even in a game of pure chance

I find this piece highly entertaining, if not enlightening, because of how he covers all bases- abstract forms of winning.

I’ve heard numerous times from Casual Players on this website that their “goal” or “outcome” in playing Magic isn’t to “Win”. However, this contradicts the very game itself. The meaning of what a game is. It would be like playing Chess by moving the pieces randomly on the board, and never winning. Or, you could abide by the rules and move them structurally correct but never have an “outcome” or “win” after doing this for several hours.
Then, you have to ask yourself, are you meeting the criteria to the game itself? Doesn’t the outcome factor into the game’s purpose? And if you don’t meet that criteria, are you even playing the game? Or, as Jesper calls the “games contract”.

Jesper’s definition (which is similar to several sources I’ve found) of a “Game” is:

A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.

The rules in how you win don’t affect the way you do as long as you abide to the contract. You could play for hours and never win a game, but still be complying by all the rules & outcomes, and still be considered more than a Casual Player in that game.

In Basketball, the goal is make a hoop to score more opponents than your opponent.

For a video game, such as “Doom”, you want to kill your opponent to outscore.

Checkers has rules, in which lead to an outcome: conquering all of your opponent’s ‘checkers’.

Why is different for Magic?

The real stance Casual Players make is that they have “fun” regardless of the outcome. However, I find this problematic only because they are tying to use this as a line of separation between themselves and the Competitive Players.

I’ve played against numerous Pro Tour opponents, and some of the world’s best. Heck, I’ve had the mighty Nick Eisel, Mike Turian, and Eugene Harvey scrub out at my place for Grand Prix Milwaukee a few years ago. Compared to them, I would be considered bottom of the totem pole of Magic players. However, I quickly found, as I well knew, that they were different than Eric and I. They played games, throwing all caution to the wind by playing crazy decks, throwing me games purposefully because I was “the host”, and without any negative demeanor. You couldn’t tell the difference between them and the basement players that we all started as- Casual Players.
The only difference -they play tournaments.
That is it.

Eric also stated in his “20 Point Fireball” article, quote:

I hate Magic writers that use obscure references that will only make sense to maybe 5% of their readers. I know it makes you feel smart, but you just lost the train of thought of the other 95% of your readers who had to stop and think, "Was that supposed to make sense?" When you make really obscure references without explaining them, it only exposes you as a myopic hack of a writer.

This will help you truly understand my flow for my response to Eric. I’ve written past articles that just flew past most individuals. I’ve found it wasn’t so much the structure but the information provided. God forbid if you’ve had to endure any ZVI Mowshowitz articles. Don’t even think about reading John Friggin’ Rizzo anthologies.

Just because something isn’t understood doesn’t equate it being incomprehensible.
I wrote my hieroglyphics in a manner that only those “5%” of readers, those ho truly do read, would understand. Or, Eric himself. Then again, unless your name is Eric and you forget even what yourself wrote.

Then it doesn’t matter.

I don’t expect most readers to go out of their way to look things up. To ask questions. To ponder life. Just….to think more than they do. We are in age of ADHD when it comes to reading & comprehension.

So, what about all the crazy LOLROFLAMO?
Well, in Eric’s own article, he stated:

“I have no problem with AOL-begat abbreviations such as "lol".
Although "lol" is the stupidest of them by far, it has a certain point to it in that it helps express a humorous response in a very short and simple manner. Others, such as "brb" or "ty" similarly help save time when expressing an idea. My problem is with leet and trademark symbols, which can convolute an otherwise simple statement and serve no real purpose of either saving time or enhancing the meaning behind a statement.

I actually like writing LOL. I do write BRB. I might even do some L337 language if need be. It’s good to open up, broaden your horizons, when you’re writing, Eric. John Rizzo is becoming quite skillful in this application. Why write in just one dimension? Poems, works of art, writings, sonnets, anthologies, etc have all been written outside the boundary. Sure, LEET isn’t an amazing concept but it just helps you break outside the shell of simple responses. And, when you get to apply it within your own writing, it helps to stimulate the brain; to look outside the box.

Eric continues on with his dreadery in “20 Point Fireball ™: Very Bad Edition ™

Who began the practice of placing a trademark symbol after terms like Bad Thing, Good Thing and Very Bad Thing? I'd like to smack them. Of these phrases, only one actually has a copyright attached to it and of all the instances I've seen it used as "Good Thing (TM)" none have been by Martha Stewart, who owns said copyright. Don't think she won't sue you.

I wish everyone would understand how Very Annoying (TM) all this Geek Speak (TM) crap is to read on the Internet Just because you write Something-In-Capital-Letters (TM) does not automatically mean it needs to be trademarked. Can you imagine a Legitimate Journalist (TM) doing something like that?
w00t! What the hell does this even mean?

It is trademarked because of its continual use-just like your own parade of defining Casual Players. You’ve done what you hated so much: TM a stereotype.
In “Defining Casual”, Eric expresses why he feels he isn’t a competitive player, but more so of a Internet defined “Casual Player”.
I mean: Casual Player ™
This will explain my Random Capitalization.

Part 2

David James Bruce started off his piece stating:

I will further examine the work offered by Mr. Houtsinger and offer insight and rebuttal there, as well

But, then, he didn't actually do it. There are no sentences taken out, or parts analyzed. In fact, he makes a lot of presumptions without fact-checking. Or, at least looking into anything I've done as a writer on this site.

David claims:

Firstly, I take issue with the title “Scrubs Corner.” A ‘scrub,’ as I have been led to believe, is a sub-standard M:tG CCG player, one whose luck or skills (or both) are not up to snuff within the tournament scene, often finding themselves donating their money and rating points to better or luckier (or both) players. I base this on the impression from the statement, “To ‘scrub’ out,” that is to say, to perform inadequately, either by accident, design, lack of effort or skill. Therefore, it would proceed logically that Mr. Houtsinger sets himself up as a sub-standard player within the competitive arena. I say that Mr. Houtsinger must necessarily be a competitive player in that I have never been confronted with a casual player referring to themselves as a ‘scrub.’ It is a term I have only heard uttered within the tournament scene, never out of it. Ergo, I believe Mr. Houtsinger to still firmly place himself within the tournament and competitive scenes, something I believe to be somewhat contradictory to endorsement and contribution to this website, a website that by its defined name is dedicated to the casual

This is quite bothersome. Oh bother...
Eric claims I cannot be a Casual Player, and firmly divides me into a category of Competitive Player, because my title “Scrubs Corner” is, “contradictory to endorsement and contribution to this website, a website that by its defined name is dedicated to the casual.”

First off, you can read about my why I have the title “Scrubs Corner” here

I've had this title ever since my childhood days of writing at The Dojo. I kept it when I was brought on board to this site, all these years, and even used it on “Tournament” websites such as StartCityGames, Brainburst, MTG, and numerous others.

Eric presumes that I “scrub out” and thus “sets himself up as a sub-standard player within the competitive arena”
However, this isn't true at all. I am sub-standard in Magic in “Casual” to “Pro” play. To be a “Scrub” or a “Nub” isn't applied to just one area. You can Scrub out in life. You can be a Nub at playing Checkers. When I first started playing, I noticed my own play mistakes. Sure, I had fun playing with my friends every Friday night with my 340 card deck, but I still hated when I made a very dumb mistake. This still happens. Sometimes in my short flash of brilliant plays are only redeemed by my mind-numbing mistakes.
As I have stated above, in Eric's section, I find 'issue' that I can't be a Casual Player (TM) because I play tournaments, or more importantly because I have dubbed myself “Scrub” in my own title.

I ask you this Bruce-isn't it saying more for someone who does play competitively, and has succeeded on that level, to humor himself, be humble, on his own faults, mistakes, and errors in this game rather than glorify his own wins, DCI points, and Pro Tour events? I wrote on BrainBurst with a title of “Scrubs Corner”, even though, in your eyes and others, I am not considered a “Scrub”, “Nub”, or even a bad player. By writing about my mistakes, the luck I run into, the friends I meet, the long-winded stores of my trip, and being happy to play this game, how is it I am not keeping that “casual” tradition alive? If you read any articles posted on CPA, you'll see people talking about stories of playing a HUGE creature, making a mistake, but still having fun. Or, playing a FNM and talking about the friends they've made.
Don't I idealize that portion of Casual Players by doing so? I could have gladly hidden everything and gave props, as Eric hates, to my own game play and those who I stomped along the way. Have you ever read anything I've written, past and present? I suspect not, and if you have, you'd realize the folly of your assumption.

Someone asked me why I didn't go to Nationals. (Honest to God truth) “I don't want to play at that level, I still enjoy playing for fun, and realize I am not that good.”

David continues on with:

I mention this because I feel it to be the underlying problem with Mr. Houtsinger’s complete misinterpretation of Mr. Turgeon’s article. While this may be enough to refute Mr. Houtsinger’s article, by itself and taken as a whole, it is my wish to continue to become more specific

Actually it doesn't. Nor was there any “mis presentation” of what Eric said. I've explained this above.

Although Mr. Houtsinger never clearly states in his opening lines of text, I will proceed with the assumption that when he uses the name “Eric,” he is referring to Mr. Turgeon, the author of the original article. If this assumption turns out not, in fact, to be correct a great deal more of Mr. Houtsinger’s article will be nonsensical than was previously believed.

Eric is his first name. Did I miss something? Eric Turgeon. *shakes head * The whole article is dedicated to him.

If we take Mr. Houtsinger’s message to be that winning is the goal of the game, then we can by definition see him as a competitive player, that to him there is no other goal to the game (by his own definition). For the competitive player, it is my impression that there is no other goal to the game than to win.

Yes, in Magic, the goal is to win. This is a simplistic, and easily understood, way to explain the game if someone was to ask you. You want to take your opponent from 20 life to 0, or deck them. The Competitive Player doesn't believe it is the only goal. Not true at all. In fact this is absurd to state. He wants to win, sure, but having “fun” is important. Also, there are several Competitive Players who want to win with their own deck. So, their goal, while to win, is to win with the deck they built. Isn't that mentality commonly displayed in Casual Players? But if he/she is in a tournament, it isn't Casual anymore, and what he is doing is considered as such? These puzzling holes of logic are what make wonder why you would even try to draw this line.
Even the Casual Player wants to win. Have fun-yes. But win, sure. Otherwise, as I stated above, why even play this game as Magic the Gathering, why not call it something else if you aren't going to abide by the rules, and contract of the game, while doing so? There is a goal to this game.
I don't care how you justify it along the way:

If we take Mr. Turgeon’s message to be that winning should never be the goal of the game, then we can by definition see him as a casual player, that to him there are boundless other goals to the game (by his definition). For the casual player, it is my impression that there
are myriad other goals to the game than to win

Having “fun” playing.
Playing with your “own” deck.
Building a “theme” deck.
Common game for you to “hang out” with your friends.

All these are, as everyone says regularly, the other “goal” in playing, but they forget they have to abide the rules, and contract, while doing these above. Those goals listed are sub-sectors. You can always have “fun” doing ANYTHING.
You can play your “own” creation and still be a competitive player.
You can build a “theme” deck, and have it suck, win, and still play at a FNM.
You can “hang out” with your friends in the basement playing a small tourney you've created.
All these structures lie within accomplishing what the goal is: to win. If you don't, you haven't negated the goal. And of them above can be done by a Casual Player or Competitive player without creating a line, boundary, between them both.

In understanding the issue in terms stated above, it was my intent to illustrate that Mr. Houtsinger is indeed a competitive player enforcing a competitive viewpoint upon a definition of what it means to be a casual player.

I have not enforced anything at all, in fact, but only broaden the horizon for those who are short sided in sight. I started this game from the basement, played FNM, Pro Tour, and back again. My viewpoints haven't changed, at least dramatically, since I've came here. I find that all players are one the same. There is no line. It's funny that the Competitive Player has to fight against the Casual Player to unify those breaking thoughts, to convince them of the “fun” I have in playing, the true good-natured intentions I have for his site and those who don't play competitively. Doesn't that say something? Or, are you a Casual Player enforcing a TM to your sector of players? If so, how is that any better than what I am 'supposedly' doing?
You'd think those more relaxed, open-minded, laid back, non-rules lawyering, non-winning, players would want to unify rather than divide. Am I missing something, again? Furthermore, why is there so much hate or resistance to go beyond the basement or round table rather than acceptance?

Part 3

Eric's latest hit “A Casual Division of Unity” is one of his best. Not because he agrees/disagrees with anything I've said, but because you can tell he has put time into writing it. You can see he put thought behind it. I can't ask for anything more. I'll remark, kindly, to some of what he is saying to only solidify my own viewpoint. Not as a Casual Player or Competitive Player, but as a person who loves this game and the people I've met along the way. No more, no less.

Houts basically said, "You're wrong. Here's why.

Eric, I honestly was trying to have fun with replying. You're not “wrong” but rather I felt you hadn't thought it all through.

As you may be able to tell, he's perfectly cabable of coming across as a literate, well-spoken representative of the Magic community. He's got an English degree, so he knows what he is writing.

“Cabable” wink
Yes, I am more than capable of writing something grammatically correct, but I find my spirit awakens by going outside the box and create something beyond the 'normal' standards. Actually I have 2 more, small, degrees on top of my English, as well have taught English Composition and other Literary classes at Secondary and College level. Most people would find this shocking, only because they envision a random kid at a keyboard randomly typing HATE, HATE, HATE on CPA. It is, quite, the contrary.

But I will comment on what he had to say. Call me an ignorant, illogical, liberal idiot, but I take what he writes to heart.

Usually I tell everyone NEVER to take what I say seriously. It's a persona I've displayed over the years. We all have one. However, with you, Eric, Notepad (miss ya partner), and a few other exceptions, I will take what you've said seriously (only because I can tell you do care), and reply humbly-with all respect deserved.

The thing that bothers me the most about Houts's response was the completely absolutist take on a very undefined subject. In his piece, everything is black or white, right or wrong, truth or fiction.

Absolutist, eh? Well, I have a educated, formed opinion. I am compelled to retort, with authority and demand, on your viewpoint, and others, because I feel it is a 'wrong' against all players. I don't want to divide, although we are, or draw that line. I want to unite. Who wants these definitions applied to them? I still play, and have my best times, playing with those basement players.

What is the definition of a game? I could spend all day finding definitions that say winning is the ultimate goal or that winning is not a necessary result. When you play peek-a-boo with a baby, is that not a game? If it is, who is the winner? What about Hacky Sack or Frisbee or good ol' catch with a football in the backyard? Games can certainly be played with no regard for the winner. Obviously Magic is a game with clearly defined rules to determine a winner. But is that the only reason to play the game? Is every loss a waste of life? Not for me, but that's up to each player to decide. In the end, I think every person must choose which definition of the game they affix when they're playing and maybe that's what determines whether or not they're a true casual player

I've commented on the categories, as does the article link, for “Games”. Playing peek-a-boo is different than playing Magic, as it is different from playing a professional game of Football. We have to separate these in order to truly understand them. You asked, “But is that the only reason to play the game?”
No, clearly not. I've commented above about the sub-sectors. The reasons for WHY you play the game. It doesn't equate to, “every loss a waste of life?” That is a question about WHY you play the game, and what you TAKE from it.
In the end, you must choose if you are enjoying the game, why you are doing it, and how you want to go about it. Those are separate from the actual definition, the goal, and the contract. But, even if you are playing Peek-a-boo, throwing a football with your friend, or a game of Uno...don't you want to win, or do it well? Yes, obviously. I've found there are players who play MTG and do not care about winning, but not because they do not WANT to win.
It is because they do not want to put forth the effort to learn the game and further themselves. Fair enough. Yet, they still want to win. They just choose not to further their skills based on motivation, etc.

Finally, I'll contend that playing Magic can be deemed a profession because, well, a lot of people are called Pro Players. Today's lesson in abbreviations: Pro is short for professional. That is how they define themselves.

No, it cannot. Just because someone is called a “Pro” players doesn't mean they are Professionals. And if it could be labeled, I would only give it to 4 people since Magic has started. I do find concern that you think they define themselves as “Pro” players. Not everyone, sir. Hardly at all. I consider myself a scrub. A few years ago I had my rating around 2003, enough to qualify, and play “professionally”, but I took my DCI points and went to FNM with them. I didn't care. I enjoyed playing the game at my own level. Not Casual or Competitive.

I have trouble with applying definitions off others. To be a true Professional, it has to be a education. Yes, a skilled trade can be considered, but we aren't talking about either. You're playing with words saying they are doing it 'professionally'. If that is the case, I know plenty of porn stars who are the top of their game and are Professional Porn Stars. I hope you get my point.

Then he says that a profession is any job in which you make a living, which only two Magic players do. I didn't think it was plausible, either, looking at some of the lifetime winnings on those Pro Player cards. $50,000 in two years?

Eric, sorry but this isn't true. I KNOW several PRO Players, old school and new age, and let me tell you-a living it isn't. What they have NOW, sure things are getting easier, but far from supporting paying bills, travel expenses, and costs of living. I suspect you aren't out of your house if you think supporting yourself on less than 12,000 a year is “living”. Because, from someone who has tried, it isn't.

I've played a lot of Magic players everywhere I've been over a long period of time and I have never met someone who said they only play for the tournaments or started playing because they heard about tournaments. The game would survive without sanctioned events. Local stores and casual clubs and groups of friends would start their own

We have to agree to disagree here. I know hundreds of players along the way, played with people of all sorts, and found the most Competitive Player is no different than the Casual Player. I've been to over 32 states in my game play, as well 2 countries. A drop in a bucket to those who are good at this game, but I have had a large amount of interaction. Also, when I do get 'recognized' at tournaments, I get to see all sides from people of all shapes, sizes, and smells. Ugh, yes, the smells...
We aren't different than you-we play this game because we love it. Tournament or no tournament. It's like playing Texas Hold em'. Sure it's nice to play a nice 'casual' game with your 4 friends, but it sure is nice to drop a $20 to play for the big bucks, for the adrenaline flow, and the love of the game.

I've pushed so hard to NOT differentiate myself from CPA to those at BB. From Nick, starting to play at 12, to Michael Thicke, who recognized my writing, I have tried to create that feeling of common unity within my articles. I never said I was great at this game, even when I succeeded.
I've been quite humble even with my sucess.

What do I see when reading Eric's response?
I see myself. I see...

A person who plays this game for the Pure Love.
A player who kills rating points like a can of RAID aimed at fleas.
A passion for reading and writing about your experiences in the game and out. Both are important.
A love for flinging a Verdant Force onto the table regardless if it goes FTW or not.
A hunger to improve a crappy deck even crappier by making your own modifications.
An understanding that while winning is the goal, or reasoning for playing this game, it isn't the only one.

I've spent a enormous amount of time writing this in hopes you will better understand my vision-or the future vision for CPA.

I leave you with our CPA founder's own thoughts on it all:

(Edit: Just to clarify that this is just *one* of the CPA founders out of 7 or so (although only two are still active as far as I know) - Spidey

Eh? Whatever. Shawn is just pointing out the reasons why I've given up on the game altogether. Between the "Casual/Pro War" (that was never fought or even declared) and so much elitism over all of the crap that goes with it I've grown sick of the game. I almost feel bad for founding the site because it seems to have grown from a simple place for people to get together and discuss the game and turned into a place where people can make themselves feel so self-righteous about not attending pro events.

Okay, so you don't play in tourneys? Great. I hope that you're having a good time with your friends in your kitchen/living room/rec room/parents' basement. However, it doesn't give you the right to say that you're better than any other players. That just makes you as bad as the "pro" players that call everyone "beneath them" n00bz.
Shawn may just sound like another hater (would that be h8ter?), but I think that he's just using his usual amount of wit and sarcasm to hammer the point home. I guess the problem is that so many of us are lost in our little worlds and forget to stop taking ourselves seriously.
Even though I'm more-or-less done w/ this site and completely done with Magic, I'm glad that people like Shawn and Eric are still here to help keep the rest of the Casual Players (tm) from taking ourselves too seriously.

Well said, sir.

Loving Nub,
Casual Player,
Competitive Player,
None of the Above,

Shawn J. Houtsinger
The One and Only,


Read More Articles by Shawn Houtsinger!

 - Wednesday (July 18. 2018)
 - Thursday (May 17, 2018)
 - Tuesday (Aprl. 24, 2018
 - Monday (Apr. 16, 2018)
 - Friday (Apr. 6, 2018)
 - Wednesday (Apr. 4, 2018)
 - Monday (Apr. 2, 2018)
 - Friday (Mar. 23, 2018)
 - Thursday (Feb. 15, 2018)
 - Thursday (Jan 25, 2018)

Voting Booth

Privacy Statement
Copyright © Casual Players Alliance.